Buddhism: the untold story

roosh

recedite wrote: »

The situation particularly in Tibetan Buddhism is extremely hierarchical, from the Dalai Lama down. While you might argue that scepticism is built into the teachings of Buddhism, it is similar to other religions in that the system is set up to promote reverence for "superiors".

It is indeed hierarchical, but then most organised structures are. Without some form of hierarchy then you could have a person who walks into a monastery for the first time teaching the monks how to meditate.

Such hierarchical structures tend to evolve organically, for various reasons, but all of them due to human nature. I would guess a large part of the reason for the evolution of such hierarchical structures in Buddhism, was for the organised dissemination of buddhist teachings.

When human beings organise themselves in such ways there are always psychological consequences; in businesses, military organisations or even charities, a reverence for "superiors" often materialises; dare I say usually. I don't think the primary aim is to promote reverence for "superiors", although there are those who undoubtedly, either consciously or subconsciously, exploit these organic structures and the people "below" them.

While buddhist philosophy encourages devotion to the teacher and the teachings, it is tempered by warnings about the dangers of it and an encouragement to only do or accept what stands up to reason, and is beneficial to the good of all.

recedite wrote: »

Apart from all the warm and fuzzy stuff discussed above, there is the concept of "wrathful bodhisattvas" in which monks can absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activities or crimes, on the basis that good and evil are two sides of the same coin.
Then there is the puritanical killjoy stuff; the ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes etc.. Wheres the fun in that?

While I'm familiar with the concept of "wrathful boddhisattvas", I'm not familiar with any interpretation which allows monks to absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activties. I would be interested to know where you have got this from, so that I could look into it more myself.

As for the a ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes, etc.; again, I'm not familiar with any such teachings in buddhism, but I would be interested to hear them if you could point me in the direction.

Ambersky

Banbh said starting this thread
But like all organisations seeking control of society (Buddhism) it has its darker side.

I know little of the warfare Banbh was talking about but I do know something about another dark side to religion and religious organizations.
So I thought maybe it would be interesting to see a Buddhist response to abuse within its own communities.

18AD said
I'm not really sure this is the case. Obviously the spiritual highs are something people will chase after and I'd agree that they are simply one experience among many. Maybe strived for simply because they are uncommon.

18AD I dont think they are uncommon these kinds of highs are experienced in all kinds of practices including rolling a good joint and thats part of the problem, Buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike.

I think my basic question has been answered. Looking at my measuring stick as to whether Buddhists would be any better at protecting the young and vulnerable from abuses from within their own communities I guess the answer I am gathering is No.
As I have said before I think any organization or religious community that can not protect its young and vulnerable can talk all the talk and theory they like but as far as I am concerned that's all it is, talk.

I have given a few examples of abuses that were silenced and hidden until recently in Buddhist communities and there are many more.
It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

All religious organizations and communities are capable of wringing their hands and saying "oh its terrible, couldn't condone that kind of thing at all".
The RC church is being asked not just to apologize ( which they are only learning to do and are not very good at yet) but to also look within its structures, within its ethos and thinking to examine what is it about their organizations that has fostered and protected abuse.
I thought the Roman Catholic church was bad at taking the attention off the actual things that happened within their own organizations, by deflecting the attention onto round and round arguments about whether it was cannon law, divine law, universal law or social laws they were talking about.
Buddhism has even more potential to use its language to take attention off the abuses that happened within its communities because it can question the nature existence objective physical reality of the I, or the abuser, or the abused, or the community within which these occurrences happened, or that there is a religion at all to bring into question, or an organization to bring into question. Indeed we dont exist at all and there is no such thing as time, there is no I to be abused and anyway its all in the mind and the individual created the situation themselves if we " really look deeper at it".

I appreciate that some of you tried but I dont think you know what I am talking about. Unfortunately Ive been here before and still they say "But nobody told us what was happening, we didnt understand at the time, none of us understood, did we?"

So no refuge in Buddhism either, sigh!

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

Just to clarify my own position which I think you're misrepresenting. I did not say the body was an illusion.

So no refuge in Buddhism either, sigh!

There is no refuge anywhere! No one escapes the trappings of humanity.

Ambersky

On Buddhism and Refuge

Taking Refuge And Generating Bodhichitta
I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the supreme Sangha,
Until I attain Enlightenment.
By the merit I accumulate from practicing generosity and the other perfections,
May I attain Enlightenment in order to benefit all living beings.

Please remember I am talking about real pain and the need for compassion for real people who know all about the trappings of humanity.
There is a saying that Religion is for people who dont want to go to hell and spirituality is for those of us who have already been there.

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Please remember I am talking about real pain and the need for compassion for real people who know all about the trappings of humanity.
There is a saying that Religion is for people who dont want to go to hell and spirituality is for those of us who have already been there.

I'm still not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe I'm just not reading your post properly.

Is it that the structures and teachings of certain forms of buddhism are easily used to excuse immoral behaviour? Because I don't think anyone is disputing that.

What I think is being disputed is that you are saying all buddhism allows or causes this type of behaviour. You throw out all buddhism because of the actions of a few (which relatively speaking is probably a big number anyway).

Ambersky

18Ad said
What I think is being disputed is that you are saying all buddhism allows or causes this type of behaviour. You throw out all buddhism because of the actions of a few (which relatively speaking is probably a big number anyway)

I suppose this is the fear when looking at the shadow side. All of us and all organizations, families or groups have a shadow side and it does not mean that when we look at it and see how nasty or dysfunctional it may be that it is the sum of all we are. Its ok we all have a shadow side, no need to deny it, but we mostly try not to look at it, or to hide it.
I dont think Buddhism is all bad. But. I don't think Buddhism is special and any different than many other religions, families or organizations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable among them.

I think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to clarify and communicate with one another. But. I also think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to hinder real communication.
Different religions will use different ways to block the message of their shadow side. I have already expressed how I think some Buddhists use language to block communication.

I would imagine many of us here dont have access to a Sanga and if we do some form of spiritual practice it may be solitary with a bit of knowledge from here and a bit from there. For these people the issues that come out of abuses happening within communities may not arise or they might not consider them applicable. In the spirit of interconnectedness I am saying these issues do need to be looked at by all whether it is affecting you now or not. It is not pleasant to look at but there are some very powerful teachings to be had from looking at the issues of power, sexism and mind body dualisms and I think communities and religions will be stronger for having addressed these issues.
I have been a member of a community and before I would jump out of the frying pan and into the fryer, I would need to examine Buddhism to see how is it different than what I left behind.
Unfortunately for me I dont think it is that different and I think it will be a while before people are ready to see the shadow side I am talking about.

So no jumping for me for a while.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

I know little of the warfare Banbh was talking about but I do know something about another dark side to religion and religious organizations.
So I thought maybe it would be interesting to see a Buddhist response to abuse within its own communities.

The problem is that you seem to be taking the stance that "one rotten apple spoils the bunch", or maybe, that a minority of individuals spoils the overall collective; you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater; tarnishing everyone with the same brush, and the myriad other idioms which describe your stance on the issue.

Ambersky wrote: »

18AD I dont think they are uncommon these kinds of highs are experienced in all kinds of practices including rolling a good joint and thats part of the problem, Buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike.

To be fair, I don't think part of the problem is that buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike; I think the overarching problem is that people develop preconceived ideas about various philosophies, including buddhism, and develop the mistaken belief that they understand what these philosophies say; particularly without engaging in the practices essential to developing such an understanding. Such is human nature unfortunately.

If you believe that smoking a joint and the practice of meditation are even similar, not to mind the same, then you are grossly, grossly mistaken. I say smoking as opposed to rolling, because rolling a joint doesn't have the same effect as smoking one.

Ambersky wrote: »

I think my basic question has been answered. Looking at my measuring stick as to whether Buddhists would be any better at protecting the young and vulnerable from abuses from within their own communities I guess the answer I am gathering is No.
As I have said before I think any organization or religious community that can not protect its young and vulnerable can talk all the talk and theory they like but as far as I am concerned that's all it is, talk.

Your basic question if flawed and incoherent, because it contains ill defined concepts.

If we take what you say though and apply it: a family is an example of an organisation or a collective; children in families suffer abuse; therefore, families cannot protect their young and vulnerable. Everyone on the planet is a member of a family, in some form or another; therefore everyone on the planet can talk all the talk nd theory they like, but, as far as you are concerned , that's all it is, talk.

So we are left with no one who can discuss the problem; including yourself, if you are, or ever have been, part of a family

Ambersky wrote: »

I have given a few examples of abuses that were silenced and hidden until recently in Buddhist communities and there are many more.
It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

Whether or not "the body" or "an organisation" is an illusion without physical reality is open to question, but you may opine the fact that the discussion would have to be rational. Ultimately the answer is either yes this is true, or no it is not true. Knowing the answer to this question doesn't make it impossible to look at the real cause of abuse, and the real reasons why it happens. Not knowing the answer does make it impossible.

In order to understand how the culture and traditions of buddhism allow abuses to happen, you must first look at what exactly "a culture" is and how "traditions" are maintained. In developing such an understanding you will, inexorably, be lead to examining the behaviours and psychology of individuals. Develop such an understanding and you will understand how abuses can occur in the first place and how people can be so apparently callous in covering them up. Don't develop such an understanding and you will be left tilting at windmills.

Ambersky wrote: »

All religious organizations and communities are capable of wringing their hands and saying "oh its terrible, couldn't condone that kind of thing at all".

All families, schools, and individuals are capable of this.

Ambersky wrote: »

The RC church is being asked not just to apologize ( which they are only learning to do and are not very good at yet) but to also look within its structures, within its ethos and thinking to examine what is it about their organizations that has fostered and protected abuse.

What do you think such an examination will reveal?

Ambersky wrote: »

I thought the Roman Catholic church was bad at taking the attention off the actual things that happened within their own organizations, by deflecting the attention onto round and round arguments about whether it was cannon law, divine law, universal law or social laws they were talking about.
Buddhism has even more potential to use its language to take attention off the abuses that happened within its communities because it can question the nature existence objective physical reality of the I, or the abuser, or the abused, or the community within which these occurrences happened, or that there is a religion at all to bring into question, or an organization to bring into question. Indeed we dont exist at all and there is no such thing as time, there is no I to be abused and anyway its all in the mind and the individual created the situation themselves if we " really look deeper at it".

Buddhist philosophy, much like the english language, has potential to be used to take attention off abuses. Just as buddhist philosophy has the potential to help victims overcome the trauma of their abuses by realising that the negative self-image that they have developed of themselves as a result of the abuse, is not real and has no objective reality; by cultivating non-attachment to the torturous memories that haunt them; by cultivating compassion that will help them to forgive not only their abuser, but themselves as well.

But guess who it is that has to use that potential; you got it, individuals!

Ambersky wrote: »

I appreciate that some of you tried but I dont think you know what I am talking about. Unfortunately Ive been here before and still they say "But nobody told us what was happening, we didnt understand at the time, none of us understood, did we?"

"Who's they, the basket makers??"
- Tommy Tiernan

Ambersky wrote: »

I suppose this is the fear when looking at the shadow side. All of us and all organizations, families or groups have a shadow side and it does not mean that when we look at it and see how nasty or dysfunctional it may be that it is the sum of all we are. Its ok we all have a shadow side, no need to deny it, but we mostly try not to look at it, or to hide it.
I dont think Buddhism is all bad. But. I don't think Buddhism is special and any different than many other religions, families or organizations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable among them.

Nobody is denying that we all have "a shadow side"; it's you that seems to be denying the role of the individual, the individuals shadow side and the overall role individuals play in cases of abuse.

Also, no one is saying that buddhism is special, what we are saying, or what I am saying at least, is that the manner in which you employ the term i.e. saying "buddhism doesn't protect the vulnerable" is so ill defined that in this case it definitely is meaningless. "Buddhism" doesn't protect vulnerable people because buddhism is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot protect people; do you know who protects people? You guessed it, other people, other individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

I think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to clarify and communicate with one another. But. I also think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to hinder real communication.

When you say "we" who are you referring to? Is it individuals by any chance? Because yes, we can use any language , system of thought, or religion to hinder real communication; but again, who is it that exploits this potential? Yes, again you are correct, it is individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

Different religions will use different ways to block the message of their shadow side. I have already expressed how I think some Buddhists use language to block communication.

Different religions don't do anything, different people who practice different religions use different ways to block the message of their "shadow side". "Religion" is an inanimate concept, it isn't capable of doing anything; it's people who use and abuse these concepts that are capable of doing things.

Try search for "religion", not on the internet, in the physical world; try to find the object called religion; you won't find it; what you will find is people who practice religion, you will find buildings, built by people and books written by people; there is no physical entity called religion. When you use such concepts anthropomorphically, without realising this, then you obscure the issue you wish to clarify.

Ambersky wrote: »

I would imagine many of us here dont have access to a Sanga and if we do some form of spiritual practice it may be solitary with a bit of knowledge from here and a bit from there. For these people the issues that come out of abuses happening within communities may not arise or they might not consider them applicable.

While access to a sangha is probably more widely available than you think, I think we might have found the first thing we agree on; many of us are removed from the issue of abuse.

This doesn't mean, however, that we are removed from the human condition, which both the abuser and the abused are afflicted with. I think everyone has experience of suffering; while it may not be the exact same level of suffering that the survivor of abuse has endured, it doesn't mean that we are totally incapable of compassion or insight into the suffering.

Ambersky wrote: »

In the spirit of interconnectedness I am saying these issues do need to be looked at by all whether it is affecting you now or not. It is not pleasant to look at but there are some very powerful teachings to be had from looking at the issues of power, sexism and mind body dualisms and I think communities and religions will be stronger for having addressed these issues.

A second thing we agree on!

We should most definitely look at these issues; I just think when we look at these issues we need to move beyond ill defined conceptual ideas and look at the real factors that cause someone to betray the trust of their students, or to subject an innocent child to such a cruel act. We need to look at the kind of suffering that victims of abuse endure and to develop true compassion for them, so that we can provide them with the support and care that they really need.

I think we also need to learn to move beyond any anger we feel towards abusers, because anger will obscure our ability to fully understand the causes and conditions that lead to abuse. We need to develop compassion for the abuser as well as the abused. Perhaps if we were to create an environment of openness and compassion in which those with tendencies towards paedophilia could come forward and seek help before they ever abused a child, then maybe we could prevent abuse from ever happening.

The only way we can do this is through understanding each other on an individual basis, not by railing against conceptual entities that are incapable of action i.e. "religion".


When looking at these things we should also maintain an awareness of our own emotional attachments and how they affect our actions; maybe what we think is compassion isn't true compassion; maybe it's just pity and a sense of guilt. Maybe we want to be the champion of a cause for less altruistic reasons that are subconscious, but which affect our behaviour nonetheless.

Ambersky wrote: »

I have been a member of a community and before I would jump out of the frying pan and into the fryer, I would need to examine Buddhism to see how is it different than what I left behind.
Unfortunately for me I dont think it is that different and I think it will be a while before people are ready to see the shadow side I am talking about.

I hope you can be open, honest, and courageous in your examination, because buddhism is more about examining yourself, not anyone else. If you're examination of buddhism only extends as far as examining what "buddhists" say, then you won't have gone very far in your examination.


Just as a matter of interest, in the community you left behind were you encouraged to question everything that the head of the community told you?

Asiaprod

"Buddhism" doesn't protect vulnerable people because buddhism is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot protect people; do you know who protects people? You guessed it, other people, other individuals.

This has been a very interesting thread. Roosh, your comment above sums up my position on this debate.

Ambersky

Ok so we are talking about non dualism.
I am saying it is important to see the workings of the collective and the workings of the individual.
I am saying that for those who are only used to seeing things from the point of view of the individual it is very difficult for them to see the nature of the collective.
Also I am saying that the individual having and acknowledging experiences of sexism racism etc in themselves often find it easier to see and understand the workings of these things in the collective. So its kind of round and round, yin yang the circle goes around, the individual or the collective, it doesnt always start at one or the other and it doesnt always end at one.
This is a non dualistic way of viewing things.

Always going on about guess who it ends with or guess who it begins with--- the individual -- is dualistic. This thinking refuses to see the dual nature of things or it puts the individual in the most important place.

The idea or concept of staying on the fringes of something of not committing to something, even buddhism and allying yourself with other outsiders who are wounded, is not a concept alien to buddhist spirituality It can be a part of the the Bodhisattva Path. On the bodhisattva path one vows to liberate all sentient beings before attaining one's own liberation.

I am not engaging in all or nothing thinking. I see much good in Buddhism. I am not saying I will never commit to Buddhism and I think I am offering a gift to Buddhism in raising these issues but at the moment I am standing in this place of learning. I have criticisms but that doesn't mean that I am rejecting everything, not fully committing to something and being critical of it is not outright rejection of every aspect. I remain critical.

I am not alone in this questioning, even if posters here do not understand the questions or issues yet but remain attached to their positions. I am not judging Buddhism solely on the responses here.
Please do not judge the validity of the issues based on my writing. These are my interpretations my experiences and take on the issues.
We do not know one anothers backgrounds or expertise in these matters as indeed I think a fair few presumptions have been made about mine. I get the idea that a lot of posters on this forum talking about Buddhism have a basic knowledge or experience of buddhism.

roosh says
The only way we can do this is through understanding each other on an individual basis, not by railing against conceptual entities that are incapable of action i.e. "religion". .

(note the all or nothing thinking - this is the only way the in di- vid- ual- way.)

However there are many Buddhists much more experienced and qualified than I, who have written, spoken and are giving interviews on abuse within Buddhist communities.
It is a very important topic but unfortunately when people are first confronted with it there is a lot of resistance and fear. This is so in Buddhist communities just as it is in Christian ones and this is not evidently my first experience of it.

Worldwide there are many individuals and yes groups, who are working on looking at the issues within Buddhism that have led to abuses of vulnerable people by those in positions of authority and they are developing a code of practice based on their findings. Unfortunately here in Ireland I have met very few people involved in Buddhism who are aware of the issues and even worldwide those engaging with the topic are in a minority meeting much resistance.
If I was near some of those people I could take a greater part in it. I was hoping that writing this would help in that understanding and maybe it has helped someone. Perhaps there are others who could word things in such a way that more of you could understand it or it would seem less confrontative.

Based on scandals with respect to power and sexual abuse within Buddhism the members of the German Buddhist Union gave in April 2011 an unequivocal vote to create a Buddhist Council or authority within the German Buddhist Union which people can approach for support, advice, information or for someone who listens, and which can offer qualified support in case someone had to experience power, emotional, financial or sexual abuse. Based on this vote there formed a group within the German Buddhist Union to work out an Ethical Charter and an Ethics Council

http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/sogyal-rinpoche-and-the-silence-of-the-tibetan-buddhist-community-and-the-dalai-lama/

Here are a couple of interviews by highly qualified people knowledgeable in several Buddhist traditions with many years of lived experience talking about the issues around sexual abuse in Buddhist Communities. You may by now be familiar with some of the themes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8DfH6BYZ3w

Martine Batchelor (born 1953), a former Jogye Buddhist nun, is the author of several books on Buddhism. In addition to writing books, she leads meditation groups with her husband that incorporate aspects of Zen, vipassanā, and Tibetan Buddhism. She studied Jogye Zen Buddhism for ten years at Songgwangsa with her former teacher Master Kusan Sunim, being ordained as a nun in 1975. Batchelor served as Kusan's interpreter on speaking tours of the United States and Europe from 1981 to 1985, the year she left monastic life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIcsdzS20w

Stephen Batchelor is a British author, teacher, and scholar, writing books and articles on Buddhist topics and leading meditation retreats throughout the world. He is a noted proponent of agnostic or secular Buddhism.
in February 1972, at the age of eighteen, he embarked on an overland journey which eventually led him to India. He settled in Dharamsala, the capital-in-exile of the Dalai Lama, and studied with Geshé Ngawang Dhargyey at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. He was ordained as a novice monk in the Gelug tradition in 1974. A few months after ordination, he sat a ten-day Vipassana meditation retreat with the Indian teacher S.N. Goenka, which proved a lasting influence on his practice, and aroused his curiosity about other traditions of Buddhism.
He left India in 1975 in order to study Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and doctrine under the guidance of Geshé Rabten, first at the Tibet Institute Rikon then in Le Mont-Pèlerin (both in Switzerland), where he helped Geshé Rabten to establish the Tharpa Choeling (now Rabten Choeling). The next year he received full ordination as a monk. In 1979 he moved to Germany as a translator for Geshé Thubten Ngawang at the Tibetisches Institut, Hamburg.
In April 1981 Batchelor travelled to Songgwangsa Monastery in South Korea to train in Zen Buddhism under the guidance of Kusan Sunim.

http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sex-scandals-in-religion-sogyal-rinpoche/

Jellicoe

Buddhism = Bullsh1t, particularly in the 'West'

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

Ok so we are talking about non dualism.
I am saying it is important to see the workings of the collective and the workings of the individual.

Just to distinguish this non-dualism, from the non-dualism were discussing earlier; that is, the non-duality of mind and body, which is, as mentioned, a part of buddhist philosophy.

I think, though, to say that it is important to see the workings of the collective and the individual would be more dualistic than non-dualistic, for obvious reasons.

The question we must ask ourselves, however, is what exactly is "a collective"? The answer is that it is a collective of individuals; and while it is helpful to look at what behaviours a collective will exhibit, in order to understand why the collective exhibits those behaviours we need to examine the psychology of the invidividuals. If we only look at the collective we will only ever get information such as "the collevtive does X", we will never get an answer to the question "why does the collective do X.

In the context of this discussion, when we look at the macro-level [of the collective] we get the information "some members of the collective engage in sexual abuse". In order to get an answer as to the question "why do some members engage in sexual abuse, while others don't" we can no longer look at the collective, because the collective doesn't distinguish between those members who engage in sexual abuse and those who don't.

Ambersky wrote: »

I am saying that for those who are only used to seeing things from the point of view of the individual it is very difficult for them to see the nature of the collective.
Also I am saying that the individual having and acknowledging experiences of sexism racism etc in themselves often find it easier to see and understand the workings of these things in the collective. So its kind of round and round, yin yang the circle goes around, the individual or the collective, it doesnt always start at one or the other and it doesnt always end at one.

Again, we have to look at the question "what is a collective?"; the answer to this question is that it is a collection of individuals. When we talk about understanding the workings of the collective, in the context of "why does abuse occur within the collective", we have to ask the question of "how do the workings of the collective manifest themselves; how does sexual abuse become part of the workings of the collective?". The answer to this question is that "some individual members of the collective engage in sexual abuse, while other individuals don't".

To then understand why some individuals engage in sexual abuse, while other individuals don't, we need to further understand those individuals that engage in abuse, and those that don't.


When we understand that individuals develop attachment to certain ideas and beliefs, such as the authority and infallibility of the church, as well as fear of reprisal form their peers and superiors, we can understand why members of the collective might cover up abuses within that organisation.

When we understand the psychology behind why an abuser engages in abuse and why some people, of the age of consent, will subjugate themselves to a "superior"; when this is understood at the level of the individual, then we can understand how such behaviour manifests itself "in the collective"; that is, why certain individuals in a collective will engage in a certain type of behaviour, while other individuals in the same collective don't.

Ambersky wrote: »

This is a non dualistic way of viewing things.

Always going on about guess who it ends with or guess who it begins with--- the individual -- is dualistic. This thinking refuses to see the dual nature of things or it puts the individual in the most important place.

On the one hand you say that looking at the collective and the individual is a non-dualisic way of viewing things, but on the other you are suggesting that the dual nature of things should be looked at; I'm not sure I follow that.

It should perhaps be highlighted that the suggestion isn't to ignore the collective, rather it is to see the collective for what it is; a collection of individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

The idea or concept of staying on the fringes of something of not committing to something, even buddhism and allying yourself with other outsiders who are wounded, is not a concept alien to buddhist spirituality It can be a part of the the Bodhisattva Path. On the bodhisattva path one vows to liberate all sentient beings before attaining one's own liberation.

My own understanding is that the Boddhisattva path does not encourage "staying on the fringes" and "not committing".

Ambersky wrote: »

I am not engaging in all or nothing thinking. I see much good in Buddhism. I am not saying I will never commit to Buddhism and I think I am offering a gift to Buddhism in raising these issues but at the moment I am standing in this place of learning. I have criticisms but that doesn't mean that I am rejecting everything, not fully committing to something and being critical of it is not outright rejection of every aspect. I remain critical.

I am not alone in this questioning, even if posters here do not understand the questions or issues yet but remain attached to their positions. I am not judging Buddhism solely on the responses here.
Please do not judge the validity of the issues based on my writing. These are my interpretations my experiences and take on the issues.
We do not know one anothers backgrounds or expertise in these matters as indeed I think a fair few presumptions have been made about mine. I get the idea that a lot of posters on this forum talking about Buddhism have a basic knowledge or experience of buddhism.

It's good to here that you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; it was probably just an issue of communication, because the language that you were employing was very general; instead of saying that "some buddhists do this" or "some buddhists do that", you were saying "buddhism does this" and "buddhism doesn't do that". Which, while probably unintentional was all or nothing language.

I think it is a very positive thing that you are raising these issues, because they are important issues that need to be considered, and investigated. It certainly helps to knock any idealised views that can easily develop, when it comes to traditions such as buddhism. I certainly wouldn't judge the validity of the issues solely based on the writings of people I encounter on an online forum; just as I hope you wouldn't judge the validity of buddhist philosophy on the sole basis of what other peole tell you about it.

While everyone here, myself moreso than anyone perhaps, may not fully understand the issues of abuse, I wouldn't mistake opposition to your posts as being solely attachment to a position - although I know in my case that was, to a degree, a factor. Part of the issue also lies in how you have stated your criticisms; the use of broad and general statements, such as "Buddhism doesn't protect it's vulnerable" are ill defined and inaccurate and require clarification.

Ambersky wrote: »

(note the all or nothing thinking - this is the only way the in di- vid- ual- way.)

It isn't simply all or nothing thinking, it is a logical deduction. If we want to understand the issue "why does abuse happen within a collective?", we need to understand how the issue of abuse manifests itself within the collective. When we examine this we can see that some individuals within the collective engage in abusive behaviour, while others (the majority perhaps?) do not. To understand why some individuals engage in this kind of behaviour, while other individuals do not, we need to understand those individuals respectively.

When we understand them we can see that the process of individual psychology ( and spirituality perhaps, because I'm not sure how advanced the field of psychology is with regard to attachment to beliefs and emotions) is what determines the behaviour of those individuals who engage in certain types of behaviour, and those that don't. This then manifests itself as some people, within a collective engaging in abuse.

Ambersky wrote: »

However there are many Buddhists much more experienced and qualified than I, who have written, spoken and are giving interviews on abuse within Buddhist communities.
It is a very important topic but unfortunately when people are first confronted with it there is a lot of resistance and fear. This is so in Buddhist communities just as it is in Christian ones and this is not evidently my first experience of it.

Again, I wouldn't mistake a reluctance to fully accept all the criticisms for fear and resistance of the idea that the issues occur and need to be addressed; much, and in this case most, of the resistance comes from sweeping generalisations being made and the need to clarify the issues.

People are prone to think in general terms and to conceptualise, to the degree that it can obscure the issues at hand and hinder communication. What we need to do is examine the concepts we use and see what the true issues are.

Ambersky wrote: »

http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/sogyal-rinpoche-and-the-silence-of-the-tibetan-buddhist-community-and-the-dalai-lama/

Here are a couple of interviews by highly qualified people knowledgeable in several Buddhist traditions with many years of lived experience talking about the issues around sexual abuse in Buddhist Communities. You may by now be familiar with some of the themes.

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Thanks for posting the videos, they do make for intersting watching; but I think it is important to examine what she actually says.

The very first thing she says on the topic is that these kind of abuses are "human" behaviour; they're not buddhist behaviour, they're not christian behaviour, they're not atheistic behaviour; they're human behaviour; this is how some humans behave.

Again, it might be worth re-iterating that what is being discussed in the video, as she mentions, is that these abuses are the actions of some, not all. When this is the case, that some, not all, engage in a certain type of behaviour, we have to ask ourselves why this is; what is the mitigating factor?

Around the 1m21sec mark she points to what this might be; she says that some people get the idea that they are enlightened; they delude themselves into thinking they are enlightened and believe they are above ethics. She re-iterates this again around the 3min 30sec mark. In these cases she is talking about individuals.

Around the 5min mark she points out the fact that the students "need their teacher to be amazing" so they take everything they do as being enlightened; again, this is problem that afflicts the invididual; and while it might be more prevalent within a collective, this is only because each individual might feel a certain level of compeition and want to be "the number one student", or they might fear not being on par with their peers.

Sorry, I'm too tired at the moment to go through the rest of it. She mentiones cultural and group coersion, which are points you may wish to raise, and which we can take a look at, to understand the dynamic and the underlying causes and effects.

For anyone who has engaged with buddhist practice more than very casually, I'm sure they will probably agree that they have "become enlightened" quite a few times already. The teachings point out the possibility of this happening, and the dangers of it.

Ambersky wrote: »

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sex-scandals-in-religion-sogyal-rinpoche/

Sorry, too tired to go through that one as well, but I'd be happy to if there are any issues from it.

Jellicoe

bluewolf wrote: »

There cannot be an immortal life, because there is no soul. Our lives are already eternal in a sense, because of the cycle of rebirth. To end that is the aim.

And anything that aims for self extinguishment as the goal of life is also complete bullsh1t

roosh

Jellicoe wrote: »

And anything that aims for self extinguishment as the goal of life is also complete bullsh1t

"self extinguishment" suggests there is actually something there to be extinguished; buddhist philosophy points to the fact that there is nothing there to extinguish in the first place; it's just a delusion.

Jellicoe

roosh wrote: »

"self extinguishment" suggests there is actually something there to be extinguished; buddhist philosophy points to the fact that there is nothing there to extinguish in the first place; it's just a delusion.

To complete the delusion of gravitas grasshopper, you should have dressed up as yoda. aaaUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . . .ding
lol

recedite

roosh wrote: »

Thanks for posting the videos, they do make for intersting watching; but I think it is important to examine what she actually says.

The very first thing she says on the topic is that these kind of abuses are "human" behaviour; they're not buddhist behaviour, they're not christian behaviour, they're not atheistic behaviour; they're human behaviour; this is how some humans behave....
Around the 1m21sec mark she points to what this might be; she says that some people get the idea that they are enlightened; they delude themselves into thinking they are enlightened and believe they are above ethics. She re-iterates this again around the 3min 30sec mark. In these cases she is talking about individuals.

No, she is talking about certain "schools of buddhism" not just some individuals. She mentions that they teach the idea of an "awakening", after which the individual will have attained a state "beyond ethics". She is a bit vague in identifying who these schools are, at first saying it is a modern idea, and then later, pinning it on Zen buddhists.

This is a common problem for religions without a centralised control and dogma. For example in Islam, some Imams will say there is nothing in the koran to justify suicide bombings and that jihad is only justified in self defense. Others teach a contrary position, that it is more of a crusade against the enemies of Islam.
Once a religion takes people "beyond ethics" the problems really start for everyone.

conor.hogan.2

Banbh wrote: »

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

I do not believe in any supernatural forces as again this is not a religion.

You sound like another angry (likely young) new atheist, not knowing one can be both.

maguffin

For clarification......

The practice of Buddhism entails consistent meditation and mindfulness for the purpose of reducing one's poisons or delusions and arriving at a clear state of mind - the Enlightened Mind of the Buddha.

All Buddhists share this common goal: to bring an end to suffering by taming the mind. Since the human condition contains many different forms of suffering, the Buddha taught many paths to liberation, which are now practiced throughout the world.

Buddhism was brought to Tibet in the 8th Century, and has flourished there ever since, transmitted from Gurus to disciples in an unbroken lineage. The Tibetan practices share a distinctive motivation: they are undertaken to end not only one's own suffering, but also the suffering of all other beings, to each of whom we owe a karmic debt. The understanding is that since we are all linked to one another, one person's liberation is incomplete until all other beings have been liberated.
So with the help and guidance of the Teacher, Tibetan Buddhist practitioners work to develop the pure perception which arises out of meditation. That clarity is then used to awaken and increase their compassion for others until it equals the unconditioned compassion of the Buddha.

Some forms of Buddhism (mostly older) have deities, and concepts of heaven very similar to Christianity. Others (like Zen) are so esoteric as to seem completely non-religious. That all these different interpretations can claim the same source is one reason Buddhism is regarded more as a philosophy than a religion.

No Creator figure
Most Buddhist thought states that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and always will. The idea of "creation" is a chiefly (but not exclusively) Western concept. It could be said that creationist theologies fit very neatly with cultures based on accumulation and exploiting natural environments, the very model of society bequeathed to us from the Greek & Roman empires

Instead of a Supreme Being, Buddhism offers two primary devices for believers to find a moral compass:

--The Law of Cause and Effect:
In Western terms, this can be explained by the adages: "What goes around, comes around", and "You reap what you sow". In simple terms, this theory states that every action creates an Effect, one that is registered within the universe, and this Effect will manifest itself in the future as the Cause for another action. Since the universe is said to be without beginning or end, this process of Cause and Effect will continue endlessly for eternity. Buddhism also contains a concept to explain the human component of this phenomenon: Karma. It can be thought of as the storehouse of individual actions (Causes), and the medium by which these actions manifest themselves in the future (Effects).

Unlike theologies that requires a deity to pass judgment, the Law of Cause and Effect is a benign force, akin to force of gravity. When we push a glass from the table, most of us don't suppose there is any Being that "decides" whether or not that glass will fall and break---it just does. God may have created gravity, but He doesn't need to regulate it on a constant basis. Likewise with Cause and Effect---actions create reactions, no need for a referee.

Therefore, Buddhism states that each individual is responsible for his own actions, and it is this process of Cause and Effect, not a Judgment Giver, that determines each individuals' fate.

--Absolute Proof:
The other major distinction between Buddhism and many other religions is that while faith is required, blind faith is discouraged. Many interpretations of Buddhism state that whatever a believer is told or taught, they must have exact proof that it holds true for them. The burden of this "proof" is entirely personal, and can range from experience, to information that is received and contemplated. Without this "absolute" proof, any Buddhist (or other) philosophy is considered meaningless.

Thus, Buddhists are encouraged to openly question, and different interpretations are a natural occurrence. This willingness for continuous re-examination is probably what Buddhism has most in common with agnostic philosophy.

To Summarise the Essence of Buddhism
The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.

Ambersky

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity. If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that
Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

Lack of standard definition of "religion:"

Whether Buddhism is, or is not, a religion depends upon how the word "religion" is defined. Lots of people have their favorite definition; some think that theirs is the only valid meaning for the term.
bullet Some definitions required a religion to include belief in the existence of one or more deities; this would classify most expressions of Buddhism as a non-religious since it is essentially a non-theistic religion.

bullet Other definitions do not require religion to include belief in a deity; these would probably include Buddhism as a religion.

For example:
bullet Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition): defines religion as: "any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Buddhism would not be considered a religion under this definition, because it is basically non-theistic: it does not generally involve worship of a supernatural entity.

bullet Wikipedia once defined religion as: "... a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought." 1

Buddhism could be considered a religion because its various forms share a system of thought that is considered to be the highest truth. It involves moral codes, practices, values, traditions and rituals.

More recently, Wikipedia have adopted the definition of the late Clifford Geertz, an anthropologist from Princeton: Religion is: "an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth. 2,3

Here again, Buddhism would be considered a religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm

maguffin

Ambersky wrote: »

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

From the Oxford Dictionary:
Definition of religion
noun

[mass noun]

• the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Since Buddhism as taught and practiced today does not have a Creator/God, it is NOT a religion.


Just pointing out that from what I have learned from my being a Buddhist (since 1982) is that it is NOT a religion. A practicing Buddhist can, if he/she so wishes infer the qualities of religion to it if that is what makes it work better for them.

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity.

The usefulness of any philosophy or religion can only be assessed by those who choose to practice it. For me, in my life, it is very usefull and offers a guide or Path, if you like, for me to follow so that I can best show compassion for, and be of help to those around me.

If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that

Probably because that is not the focus of the posters in this Forum.

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

Human nature is such that no matter what the topic for discussion is, there will ALWAYS be dissagreement, differing definitions, intolerance, argument, claims and counter-claims......it's just the Human Condition....exhibited nicely here as in any other Forum/Forum topic you wish to choose.

Ambersky

Thank You maguffin for your straight answers. Whew!

maguffin

Ambersky wrote: »

Thank You maguffin for your straight answers. Whew!

You're welcome!!

conor.hogan.2

Ambersky wrote: »

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum.

"What is the use of you searching books for the sources of various quotations you have heard?* When the question is yours you will find the answer also."

*or just going on forums asking questions that could be answered in seconds in some peoples cases.

roosh

Jellicoe wrote: »

To complete the delusion of gravitas grasshopper, you should have dressed up as yoda. aaaUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . . .ding
lol

I figured using incorrect grammatical structure would just confuse the situation; but, if at any point you wish to discuss the issue rationally, by all means feel free.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

No, she is talking about certain "schools of buddhism" not just some individuals. She mentions that they teach the idea of an "awakening", after which the individual will have attained a state "beyond ethics". She is a bit vague in identifying who these schools are, at first saying it is a modern idea, and then later, pinning it on Zen buddhists.

Yes, but within that she says that not everyone within those schools will engage in abusive behaviour; she highlights the idea of people believing they have attained liberation when they haven't; of people believing the master has attained liberation and treating everything they say and do as being infallible; and how this just feeds the Ego. This isn't true of everyone, it is only true of some people. She even goes on to name two individuals to make her point.

It might be worth pointing out that, just like the rest of us, she is quite capable of using broad conceptual language also; what we need to do is break down those concepts, examine them, and see the underlying dynamics.

In every case, where you have broad and general statements, you can break it down to "some people do; some people don't". Once you can make this distinction you are talking at the level of the individual.

recedite wrote: »

This is a common problem for religions without a centralised control and dogma. For example in Islam, some Imams will say there is nothing in the koran to justify suicide bombings and that jihad is only justified in self defense. Others teach a contrary position, that it is more of a crusade against the enemies of Islam.
Once a religion takes people "beyond ethics" the problems really start for everyone.

Again, we have the phenomenon where "some people do; some people don't"; the question is, why, if there is one book that people are reading from, are is there more than one interpretation; given that the book does not interpret itself, it must come down to each individuals interpretation.

When we say that it belongs to a particular "school" of philosophy, we must further examine what we mean by "school"; what we find is a collection of individuals whose individual psychology combines to create a group dynamic. Each individual has their own interpretation of the philosophy; even where many individuals share a nearly homogenous interpretation, there will still be nuances within each individual, however minute. Even assuming a homogenous interpretation passed on by a teacher, it is the individuals attachment to their belief in that particular interpretation, and their fear of reprisal from their peers that causes them not to go against the grain.


For every group that exhibits a certain kind of dynamic, it is the individuals within that group, and their individual - although common - psychology which drives that group dynamic; and which must be understood, in order to understand how the group dynamic occurs.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

Ambersky, it seems as though you're failing to understand the issues that arise out of conceptualisation. The list of definitions you provide below only serve to highlight that issue; when you ask the question "is buddhism a religion?" you have to state precisely what you mean by religion, because for every person there is on this planet there is an interpretation of the concept "religion".

Buddhist philosophy, and spiritual philosophy in general, highlights the problem of speaking in such vague generalisations; it teaches about going beyond concepts so that we can get to the root of issues, instead of getting caught up in meaningless statements such as "buddhism does this, and budhhism does that". It highlights the issue of attachment to those concepts as being a major issue; attachment to the idea of what relgion is and rejecting anything and everything said within a religious context, is part of the issue. It's a bit like a murderer saying "it's bad to murder people" and then rejecting the idea that it's bad to murder people, just because a murderer has said it.

Ambersky wrote: »

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity. If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that.

Any ambiguity that exists in the discussion is a result of the use of ill defined concepts, and sweeping generalisations.

The reason you're not hearing much about compassion, is because the intention of your posting isn't to foster a discussion on compassion; if you start a thread entitled "what is compassion?", or "how could buddhist philosophy be used to help the victims of abuse?" then you will hear a lot more about it. Instead, the obvious intention of your posting is to question the validity of buddhism on the basis of abusive behaviour of, if I am not mistaken, the few, not the many.

Indeed, it is very difficult to see the usefulness in buddhist philosophy when we lack even a basic understanding of it; it is impossible to realise the usefulness of the philosophy without engaging in the practices, such as meditation, on which the philosophy is based.

Ambersky wrote: »

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm

The issue isn't that we can't agree on whether or not buddhism is a religion, it's that no one can agree on what a religion is; it is the use of such vague concepts, and in particular certain peoples attachment to them that is the issue in the first place - what does it matter if buddhism falls into a certain ill defined category or not; what difference will that make to the victims of abuse?