An Alert For Persons Interested In Dr Ambedkar--research FWVO
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 13, 2013 05:52AM
Dr Ambedkar, the great Indian statesman led the Dalits (aka "untouchables') to convert to the Buddhadharma and abandon the Hindu caste system that had systematically dehumanized them.
This great man, himself born into the Dalit group, secured a full education for himself and played a key role in drafting India's constitution. He is now deceased and his name and legacy are honored.
It has been contended that Sangkarashita, founder of FWBO, linked his name to Dr Ambedkar's work.
Those who want to learn about Dr Ambedkar and those who continue his emancipatory legacy should take care to read Ambedkar's own works and do background research .
[www.ex-cult.org]
Dr. Ambedkar and the Untouchables
Turning to Sangharakshita's links with Dr. Ambedkar's movement, in particular, and quite apart from the unsubstantiated claim that he was Ambedkar's "friend and close adviser", the claim that Sangharakshita officiated at a ceremonial mass conversion of half a million Harijans (Untouchables) to Buddhism, this too has little basis in fact. History tells us that one of the closest ordained advisers to Ambedkar was the eminent Sri Lankan bhikkhu, Dr. H. Saddhatissa, who officiated at the famed mass conversion at Nagpur in October 1956. Dr. Saddhatissa has now passed away, but, when quizzed, Ven. Madagama Vajiragnana, one of his closest contemporaries and colleagues for decades, had no knowledge of Sangharakshita's early involvement in the movement nor of his having officiated at the conversion ceremony. He further stated that Saddhatissa had made no mention of Sangharakshita in relation to the said event on any occasion. Another friend and confidante of Dr. Saddhatissa for many years, R.W., stated that he had never mentioned the presence of Sangharakshita at Nagpur in all the years he had known him.
The conversion episode itself seems to have fallen victim over the years to the blight of exaggeration. Whereas in 1979 we are told that "�over a longer period he personally officiated at the conversion ceremony of 200,000 people" [20], by 1987 Sangharakshita is "said to have officiated at a mass conversion of some 500,000 so-called 'Untouchables'". [21] In order to confirm his presence and status, alleged or otherwise, at Nagpur in October 1956, I decided to consult the November 1956 issue of 'The Maha Bodhi', the journal of the Maha Bodhi Society, at that time one of India's most respected Buddhist organizations. Sangharakshita, being fond of writing numerous articles on his understanding of Buddhism for publication, wrote frequently to 'The Maha Bodhi'; he was therefore not unknown to the Society. Yet, when one examines the report of the famed conversion event, though listing the names of numerous eminent personages present and documenting meticulously the proceedings, no mention of Sangharakshita is made.
An article below that mentioned actually did refer to Sangharakshita and located him in Gangtok, Sikkim, where he was said to have been from the 9th � 12th October. The conversion ceremony at Nagpur took place on the 14th. To travel from Gangtok in Sikkim, which, even today, has no airport, to Nagpur in India, through the Himalayas as the winter of 1956 set in, traversing hundreds of miles of hazardous and barren terrain, and arrive in Nagpur for the ceremony by the 14th would have been physically impossible. Since to travel such a distance was impossible, we can be sure that Sangharakshita was not at Nagpur for the most famous conversion of the 'Untouchables' carried out by Dr. Ambedkar and his associates. The eminent Buddhist historian, Trevor Ling has written that, subsequent to this first conversion, such events became numerous and commonplace [22]. In reality then, Sangharaskshita was not a significant figure in an important Indian historic and religious event. Rather, he assisted at some of the innumerable commonplace conversions which followed it
http://response.fwbo.org/fwbo-files/response11.html
[www.google.com]
The FWBO in India
The FWBO is called Triloka Bauddha Maha Sangha or TBMSG in India. Since about 1979, the FWBO has been trying to extend its influence over the movement of New Buddhists started by Dr Ambedkar in India in 1956.
Dr Ambedkar was born into an untouchable caste Indian family, but gained an education and rose to become Indian Law Minister. He is considered the architect of the Indian Constitution, and is something of a hero to the ex-untouchables, or Dalits as they prefer to be called nowadays. Although the caste system is officially illegal under the Indian constitution, old habits die hard, and shortly before his death in 1956, Dr Ambedkar converted from Hinduism to Buddhism, partly because Buddhism does not have a caste system, and because he saw Buddhist philosophy as offering a better model for the social and spiritual emancipation of the Dalits. Many of Ambedkar�s supporters followed his lead, and the movement of Ambedkarites or New Buddhists now totals around 9 million in India, mostly in Maharashtra. The FWBO/TBMSG comprises only a very small proportion of this total, but they have been growing.
As outlined in the section Dr Ambedkar and the Untouchables in The FWBO Files, Sangharakshita has been trying to pass himself off as the close confidante and advisor of Dr Ambedkar, although the extent of his actual contact with Ambedkar, if any, remains unclear. The FWBO/TBMSG had been having some success in presenting themselves as guardians of Dr Ambedkar�s �Dhamma revolution�, but the publication of the Guardian article and The FWBO Files have had a significant impact on the FWBO�s operations in India. The Guardian article was reprinted in The Sunday Times of India, and the Files have been accessed through the internet, and have been translated into Hindi and Marathi.
The status of a monk is highly revered in India, and Indian FWBO/TBMSG members are particularly concerned about Sangharakshita having continued to wear monk�s robes when visiting India, while still engaging in homosexual �experimentation� in the West, as he has admitted in the Guardian article and elsewhere. They are concerned about the secrecy and deception this has entailed, and also about possible misuse of some of the funds and covenants raised by the FWBO�s �Aid for India� and �Karuna Trust� charities.
As in the UK, the FWBO/TBMSG has been trying to minimise the damage, but 80 or more Indian order members and mitras have resigned or been expelled, and there have been demonstrations, and public burnings of Sangharakshita�s photograph.
Vimalakirti and Bakul's expulsions (2,200 words)
A letter from Subhuti, announcing the expulsion of Vimalakirti and Bakul. In the second paragraph of his letter, Subhuti writes:
'Bhante [Sangharakshita] wrote a letter to Vimalakirti, dated 6th August, a copy of which is appended, telling him that he no longer recognises him as a member of the Order. He wrote another letter, appended hereto, handing on to me his remaining responsibilities for the Order in India, especially for deciding whether or not someone was still a member of the Order. I wrote to Bakul on 14th August, telling him I no longer recognised him as an Order member and to Bodhidharma on 13th, telling him that, unless I heard from him shortly saying he did want to continue as an Order member, he would be considered to have excluded himself. He did [not] contact me, so he is suspended from participation in all order activities until we are able to resolve various issues.'
Sangharakshita, and latterly the people like Subhuti to whom he has handed on his responsibilities, have the power to expel order members who criticise them or their activities. For details of how this control over order membership gives Sangharakshita and his appointees legal control over the FWBO and its assets, see The FWBO as Business
Bakul's letter protesting against his expulsion (1,400 words)
A letter from Dharmachari Bakul (Dharmachari = order member), protesting against his and Vimilakirti�s expulsion. Bakul was the first Indian order member, and is also a qualified Advocate (Barrister) in India.
Resignation letter from 88 Indian FWBO members (800 words)
A letter from 88 FWBO/TBMSG order members and mitras from the Mumbai (Bombay) area, setting out the reasons why they have decided to resign.
http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/fwbofiles.htm#doctrines
THE DOCTRINES OF SANGHARAKSHITA AND THE FWBO
Whereas some of what Sangharakshita and the FWBO teach is Buddhism, albeit somewhat distorted, a number of the doctrines they propound are not Buddhist at all. Indeed both rely heavily on numerous non-Buddhist sources to explain what they feel to be the real essence of Buddhism.
Higher and Lower Beings
FWBO publicity tells us, for instance, that "the real aim of meditation, is to transform consciousness - to make you a higher type of being than you were before you began practising it" [30]. In fact this totally contradicts the true aim of Buddhist meditation, which is not to transform consciousness but to transcend it, taking off all masks rather than exchanging one for another.
In reality, the theory of the individual's potential to achieve a 'higher evolution', a theory which Sangharakshita frequently refers to in his works, has its origins in the works of Nietzsche, one of the FWBO 'founder's' preferred authors. The view that someone who practises Buddhist meditation becomes a 'higher being' IS linked to Buddhism; in fact, the Tibetan rendering of a Sanskrit term for a realised being, 'Arya Pudgala' (Tib. 'Phags pa'i Gang zag) directly translates into English as such. However, without a proper understanding of Buddhist doctrine, this terminology can easily be misinterpreted (cf. the Italian fascist Julius Evola's work 'The Doctrine of Awakening', which, while purportedly Buddhist, actually falls into the same misinterpretive trap as do the FWBO). It is only when one examines the qualities of such a being , that one gains a proper and correct understanding of the term.
When, through developing a deep insight into the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Arising, a person becomes an Arya Pudgala, he or she abandons three spiritual fetters. The first of these fetters is the 'view on the existing group' which causes the belief in a substantial self, an actual independent being existent somewhere within the body-mind continuum. This means that at the point of insight into the actual nature of self, there is no transformation of any individual being from a lower to a higher state. Rather, there is a recognition of the non-existence of any such being, lower or higher. Nietzsche's theory, on the other hand, has as its basis the concept of the evolution of an actual being from a lower to a higher state, 'from man to superman'. If the aim of meditation in the FWBO is "to become a higher type of being than you were before you began practising it", then their philosophy is more reminiscent of the heroic and romantic superhumanism of Nietzsche and Nazi Aryanism, than any Buddhist ideology.
Nietzsche's influence is recurrent in FWBO literature. The title of Subhuti's work, "Women, Men and Angels", written to clarify Sangharakshita's views on women and the relationship between the sexes, is inspired by a quote from Sangharakshita: "Angels are to men as men are to women". Compare this to Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra", wherein he states "As man is to ape, so superman is to man". Whether or not one accepts that the similarity in terminology here indicates a commonality of philosophical view, Sangharakshita's theory of the evolution of the higher individual is unarguably Nietszchean (See his Man & Superman). Recently, Windhorse Press published Order member Sagaramati's work "Nietzsche and Buddhism", a further attempt by the FWBO to establish a commonality of view between the two philosophies. In fact, no such commonality exists, Nietzsche's heroic and romantic superhumanism having nothing whatsoever to do with the idea of ego transcendence, which forms the core of true Buddhist teachings.
Women
Sangharakshita's evolutionary theory of human development, expressed within "Women, Men & Angels" is further based on the idea of "The Hierarchy of Being", a thesis unheard of in orthodox Buddhist circles. It in fact emerged during the Renaissance as the idea of 'The Great Chain of Being', a pseudo Neo-Platonic theory. Despite the non-Buddhist nature of the views expressed in Subhuti's above mentioned work, such views continue to be sold to FWBO followers as Buddhism. What then is the nature of these purportedly Buddhist views?
Women are anchored in a "lower evolution" than men
Women have less "spiritual aptitude" than men
Men are better able to actualize their potential for enlightenment than women
Men are more likely to take up the spiritual life in a fuller sense than women
Men surpass women in their commitment to spiritual life
The domination of men by women is not historical fact but myth:
"The feminist reading of history as the story of woman's oppression and exploitation by man, belongs not to history but to mythology."
"Men have, of course, sometimes suppressed women (and women, men) just as Jews have sometimes enslaved Gentiles (and Gentiles, Jews)." [31]
These arguments are supported by reference to physiology, biology, psychology and social role theory but not by quotations from the Buddha, who never condemned women per se but rather condemned obsession with sex. On the occasions when Buddha did talk about the nature of female existence, he described it as "less advantageous". Male meditators in the wilderness for example, are less likely to be subjected to the ordeal of rape than their female counterparts. Subhuti however, translates "less advantageous" as "less aptitude", a discrepancy which goes unnoticed, even by himself.
In fact, to criticise or look down on women in any way is a major breach of moral discipline in the Buddhist tantric tradition (in which Sangharakshita is supposedly so well versed), wherein it states that all women should be related to as Buddhas. Such breaches of morality are more serious than, for example, a bhikkhu breaking his vow of celibacy, a point to which we shall return later.
The FWBO have cited the existence of a strong women's wing within the Order as evidence of their being no misogyny within the organization [32]. However, the existence of a separate women's wing, in what is a non-monastic environment, actually indicates the existence of both apartheid and sexism in Order hierarchies. The fact that the FWBO has a strong women's wing is no more evidence of a lack of misogyny within it than the existence of strong women's movements in India is evidence of a lack of misogyny and sexism within Indian society. Furthermore, the relative ease with which one can find female ex-Order members who have left because of the above reasons is a clear indicator of what actually goes on behind the egalitarian facade of the FWBO.
In a self-referential system such as that which exists within the FWBO, the founder's writings are considered sacrosanct. In response to accusations of sexism and misogyny in the Guardian (27/10/97), FWBO communications officer Vishvapani argued that, though the views expressed in "Women, Men & Angels" are Sangharakshita's, these views are purely his and not to be taken as official FWBO doctrine. No such disclaimer is evident within the book however, and indeed there is a distinct lack of such in any of the works wherein Sangharakshita puts forth his own very personal interpretations of the meaning of the Buddha's teaching. In such a situation, how could anyone assume anything other than that the views expressed within the work were the views of both the founder, the FWBO and, quite mistakenly, the Buddha himself.
The Family
In the Maha Mangala Sutra, a well known scripture of the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the Buddha declares:
"To support one's father and mother,
To care for one's wife and children,
...This is the highest blessing."
In the Suhrllekha of Nagarjuna, one of the great Buddhist masters of the 1st century C.E., he says,
"The race of one who worships father and mother is in company of that of Brahma and that of preceptors. Through revering them one will win fame and later will attain the higher realms."
Thus, although Buddhism is a religion of renunciation and disentanglement from worldly concerns, family life forms a foundation for the development of virtuous character traits. In the Mahayana tradition for example, appreciation of the mother-child relationship is the very foundation of the development of reciprocal compassion, which ultimately becomes the cause for the achievement of Buddhahood.
Flying in the face of this, the FWBO encourage the undermining and abolition of heterosexual, nuclear family relationships, since these trap men in what the FWBO founder describes as a situation which is "all very much on the animal level" and "a really massive source of conditioning" [33] [see full quote]. (The fact that Dudjom Rinpoche, one of the Tibetan lamas whom he claims as one of his teachers, had a family, has seemingly escaped Sangharakshita's memory). He believes that heterosexual couples engaged in the creation and caring for such a family are "the enemy of the spiritual community" [34][see full quote], indeed in one publication they are described as "the enemy to be destroyed" [35]. The Order have claimed that these views were grossly misinterpreted by the press recently and are in fact simply a dispassionate analysis of the present status quo. In their own terms, "a critique of an institution need not be accompanied by feelings of hostility" [36]. References to the "enemy to be destroyed" however, do not have the ring of dispassionate analysis about them.
Families, according to Sangharakshita, are breeding grounds for child sexual abuse, which, he claims, is "a feature of the nuclear family" [37]. He therefore recommends that FWBO followers create a 'new society' by setting up single sex communities as a direct antidote to the canker of the nuclear family since, "the single sex community is probably our most powerful means of assault on the existing social set up" [38][see full quote] for, "If you set up such communities, you abolish the family at a stroke" [39] [see full quote]. Thus, whereas traditional Buddhist societies have always been inclusive of the family lifestyle, the goal of FWBO Buddhism would appear to be the destruction of society as we know it.
If a person is not capable of abandoning his ties to the existing social set up, then, so as to prevent it 'conditioning' them too much, Sangharakshita advises that they should "be very careful not to spend too much time with the person you are having a sexual relationship with, and preferably not live with them" [40]. Subhuti has even gone so far as to recommend casual sex with a number of partners as an antidote to attachment. [41] Unfortunately such advice has no scriptural origin. Apparently then, apart from the sexual content, heterosexual relationships are of no spiritual value whatsoever. Sangharakshita has clearly either not read the above scriptures, well known as they are in the Buddhist traditions in which he was supposedly so well educated, or alternatively, he chooses to ignore them, perhaps feeling he knows more about heterosexual, nuclear family relationships than the Buddha. Yet, whereas the Buddha cherished his mother, was married previous to his adoption of the homeless life and had numerous concubines, there is no record of Sangharakshita ever having had a heterosexual relationship. His contempt for his own family is evident from his complete lack of reference to them as well as his thoroughly hostile anti-family philosophy which is propitiated throughout the FWBO world as the teaching of Buddha.
The Proper Foundation for the Spiritual Life - the Homosexual Relationship
Having alienated followers from their families, women and heterosexual relationships, Order members are encouraged to engage in homosexual relationships since, within the FWBO, such relationships are considered to be part of the path to enlightenment. Persons involved at a more superficial level might find it genuinely difficult to accept what goes on within the inner circle of the organization, but the fact is that once a person becomes an Order member (and in certain cases, even before), efforts may be made to convert the said person from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
Why? FWBO 'Buddhist' theory runs in accord with the following argument:
1) One is separated from the experience of enlightenment by conditioning.
2) Heterosexuality is conditioning.
3) If heterosexuals engage in homosexual acts they will break down their conditioning.
4) Homosexuality is therefore a means to achieving enlightenment since it causes one to abandon conditioning.
Sangharakshita has claimed publicly that his view is that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of 'conditioning' and that "We don't say that you should be homosexual.... or you should have a wife or should not" [42]. (See the above section re FWBO views on the family and heterosexual relationships to determine whether or not Order members are advised as to whether they should or should not have a wife). However, those who have known Sangharakshita personally speak of a person whose views totally contradict the above statement and furthermore, of someone whose own homosexual desires have actually carried over into the philosophy and teachings of the FWBO.
One such person was Mark Dunlop who met Sangharakshita in April 1972 when he was 22 years old and the FWBO leader was 47. By June of that year, Mark had been invited to dine with Sangharakshita, and by July he had suggested that Mark move in with him. Thinking this was a gesture of friendship rather than the first stages of seduction, Mark accepted. However, as their friendship progressed, Sangharakshita repeatedly returned to the topic of homosexuality and Mark began to feel that he was 'after him' sexually.
A few weeks after he had moved in, Sangharakshita explained the 'Buddhist' concept of 'daka' to Mark. A daka, according to Sangharakshita, was an inspirational muse, someone who was 'more than just an ordinary friend'. He told Mark that, in the tantric tradition, there were three levels of dakas. Firstly, there were those who inspired energy through a glance of the eyes. Secondly there were those who inspired through the sound of their voice and finally, there was the third kind, who inspired through physical contact. The purpose of this inspiration was to give a teacher more energy so that he, in turn, could pass that energy on to his students by giving them spiritually more powerful teachings and initiations. Sangharakshita suggested to Mark that he was a daka. When Mark told him that he'd much rather be the first kind, Sangharakshita told him "Actually, I think you're the third kind."
This explanation of the concept of daka is actually a perversion of teachings explaining the four levels of tantra. Within these four levels the manner of relating between the visualized image of a deity and the meditator progresses from glancing to physical contact through holding hands and so on [43]. The concept of daka appears only at the fourth and highest level of tantra, albeit infrequently, mainly to indicate that there is a male counterpart to the female "dakini", the real focus of the higher tantras. Sangharakshita mixed these genuine doctrines together with his own explanation of 'Buddhism' in such a way as to legitimise his own sexual desires and convince others, in this case Mark Dunlop, that engagement in homosexual activity with him was an extremely powerful and orthodox Buddhist practice.
As well as using the 'daka' argument, Sangharakshita also employed the concept of 'conditioning', a central concept which frequently manifests in his works, which supposedly translates the original Pali term 'Paticca Samutpadda', which actually means 'Dependant Origination'. Sangharakshita chooses to use 'conditioning' in this context, despite the fact that it does not convey the full meaning of this fundamental Buddhist concept, as well as its having other, more negative connotations in the Western psychoanalytic context. In reality the idea of conditioning is Pavlovian, and here, is more akin to the Scientologist's doctrine of 'Engrams', unconscious conditionings from previous lives which block one's energy and prevent one from realising ones full potential. The decision to use the term actually indicates an ignorance of the full significance of the original concept. Clearly, either Sangharakshita knows that the term is an incorrect translation and continues to use it regardless or, alternatively, he does not know that the term is incorrect; either alternative poses several questions.
Sangharakshita employs further terms and techniques relied upon by L. Ron Hubbard's organization, The Church of Scientology. The categories of reactive and creative being (Sangharakshita, Mind: Reactive & Creative, Windhorse, 1977) were an essential part of Hubbard's vocabulary, as indeed they are Sangharakshita's. 'Communication exercises', a favourite technique of the Scientologists, are employed by The FWBO in their classes. Again, neither the terminology nor the practice are locatable within any recognized Buddhist tradition. In 1987 Sangharakshita wrote:
"Unfortunately, those seeking to understand Buddhism only too often turn, or are directed, not to the canonical literature of Buddhism but to works which have little connection with that literature, if indeed they have any connection with it at all." [44]
Apart from recommending Nietzsche, Sangharakshita advises students to read such well known Buddhist classics (?) as Eagleton's "Greek Love" (a favourite of the founder), Porphypry's "Life of Plotinus" and Alan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind", a critique of pseudo liberalism in the US [45]. What connection any of these have with canonical Buddhist literature is not yet clear.
The FWBO founder told Mark Dunlop that his resistance to homosexuality was the result of 'conditioning'. Quoting Kinsey, he claimed that research had shown that a large number of men were actually bisexual but were unaware of it due to social and parental conditioning. Mark was told that his aversion to homosexuality actually showed how deeply conditioned he was and that the only way to progress spiritually and emotionally was to overcome his revulsion and accept that he was, in fact, bisexual. And so, in awe of his spiritual teacher and convinced by arguments supported by the wisdom of an ancient spiritual tradition and modern scientific research, Mark Dunlop, albeit reluctantly, succumbed.
The sexual relationship mainly consisted of Sangharakshita lying on top of Mark and masturbating himself against him to the point of orgasm. Mark would then remove the semen with a towel he kept under his bed for the purpose. Usually all this occurred on a twice weekly basis. As he became more wary of his intentions and began to realise that he had been duped, Mark would sometimes object to the advances. Sangharakshita would get his way by talking about the importance of trust and 'spiritual friendship.' On two occasions he clutched at his chest, saying "Oh, my heart" (clearly overwhelmed by the pain of rejection).
It was not until 1976 that Mark Dunlop managed to break away from Sangharakshita. Retrospectively he views the period as one wherein he was repeatedly raped by someone who had used spiritual and psychological violence, rather than plain old physical force, to subdue him. As a consequence of his experiences, Mark has, for the last 20 years, had to endure a succession of bouts of severe depression and, despite having received the help and advice of psychiatric health professionals, he remains severely emotionally damaged and unable to reintegrate into society. The consultant psychiatrist who treated Mark recognized the FWBO as a cult and declared his symptoms to be identical to those she had treated in numerous other ex-cult members [46].
Had Sangharakshita restricted his attentions solely to Dunlop, it might be claimed that he had fallen victim to a momentary lapse of reason, albeit one that lasted for four years. Unfortunately however he did not. Maurice Cooke or 'Yuveraj', Sangharakshita's subsequent 'close disciple', spoke of undergoing similar experiences at his hands and indeed has subsequently endured a prolonged period of mental difficulties as a consequence of his experiences. Furthermore, as mentioned above, more accusations of attempted seduction by the FWBO founder have appeared on the Internet since publication of the Guardian article.
When the Guardian offered Sangharakshita the opportunity to reply to the allegations and clear his name before they went to press, he refused to be interviewed or make comment of any kind. Indeed he continues to refuse to discuss the matter with anyone at all, even the group of young men with whom he presently lives. This, according to an FWBO reply to the Guardian article, is because to do so "would involve Sangharakshita in an exercise of disloyalty towards a former friend." [47] Unlike Sangharakshita, a number of the men he seduced or attempted to seduce during the 1970's and 80's consider truth to be of more importance than loyalty. One wonders how many of his victims will have to come forward before Sangharakshita deigns to answer their accusations.
Incredibly, in an attempt to defend Sangharakshita, the same document quoted above tells us:
"In his early years in Britain, Sangharakshita.... explored a number of different...routes to deeper human experience, even perhaps, spiritual experience, such as sex and psychedelic drugs, while of course continuing to meditate, study, and practise within the Buddhist tradition.[!] These explorations were always of a personal kind. He considered them to be taking place within the context of friendships and did not advocate their use by his disciples." [48]
Which 'Buddhist tradition' advocates that 'monks' engage in a mixture of sexual misconduct, LSD 'trips', and meditation, as the path to enlightenment remains a mystery. More importantly, the above represents a direct admission on the part of the FWBO that, whilst manifestly lying by posing as a Buddhist monk, their 'founder' was having sex and taking drugs. The sheer hypocrisy of Sangharakshita is made further apparent by the claim that all of these things took place within the context of 'friendships' rather than being encouraged amongst disciples. Quite apart from the fact that most of Sangharakshita's friends were his disciples at this point, the sanctiminious attitude of "don't do as I do, do as I say" is an inexcusable one in any of the genuine Buddhist traditions since all of these require that a true teacher maintains pure moral discipline as a prerequisite qualification.
Sangharakshita's personal philosophy of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is not one that he employs solely at a microcosmic level for the satisfaction of his own personal desires. His methods have been propagated macrocosmically throughout the FWBO and it is clear that the practice is common to other Order members.
The first stage in the process of conversion to homosexuality is, as in Mark Dunlops case, convincing people that they are nothing other than a mass of conditioning. Sangharakshita writes:
"...we are just a mass of conditioning: a class conditioning, plus an economic conditioning, plus a religious conditioning, plus a national conditioning, plus a linguistic conditioning. There is very little in fact... that is really, in a word, us." [49]
Elsewhere he states:
"Bodhi (Enlightenment)... consists in taking a very deep, clear and profound look into oneself, and seeing how, on all the different levels of one's being one is conditioned, governed by the reactive mind, reacting mechanically, automatically, on account of past psychological conditionings of which, only too often, one is largely unconscious." [50]
The next step is to convince people that their heterosexuality is the result of conditioning, apparently the main reason for our unenlightened state, as indeed equally, is the fear of homosexuality. Sangharakshita writes, "...men find it quite difficult to experience physical contact with other men because of their fear of homosexuality" (i.e. 'conditioning'). In order to counter this, "They must break down their fear of homosexuality by facing it and by not being afraid of sexual contact with other men." Men, "have to realise that physical and even sexual contact between men is just physical or sexual contact between men. It is a quite ordinary thing and men's fear of that should not be allowed to get in the way of one's friendships." Why? Because fears of physical contact with other men, "...very often limit the possibilities of friendships with other men. And so because they don't develop friendships with other men, they don't develop spiritual friendships with other men. And because they don't develop spiritual friendships with other men, they're not able to develop what the Buddha declared to be the most important element in spiritual life." [51]
Having convinced one's audience that their heterosexuality and fear of homosexuality is simply the result of conditioning and that this is preventing them from progressing spiritually, the next step is to convince them that it is possible to transcend the mundanity of normal 'conditioned' relationships by engaging in a 'spiritual' homosexual relationship.
In a speech given to an FWBO conference on the ordination of men in July 1986, a speech subsequently reprinted in Shabda, an FWBO magazine of limited distribution intended for Order members, Alex Kennedy (Subhuti), Sangharakshita's spokesman and second in command, stated:
"� within the context of the spiritual community...sexual interest on the part of a male Order member for a male mitra ('friend') can create a connection which may allow kalyana mitratata ('spiritual friendship') to develop. Some, of course, (i.e. homosexual members) are predisposed to this attraction. Others have deliberately chosen to change their sexual preferences in order to use sex as a medium of kalyana mitrata and to stay clear of the dangers of male-female relationships without giving up sex." [52]
"Many people do not feel able to do this, whether as a result of taboo or reluctance to give up a conditioned predisposition."
Thus, for heterosexuals, the key to spiritual friendship, "the most important element in spiritual life" and the foundation of the path to Enlightenment, is to transcend "taboos", give up one's "conditioned predispositions", change ones sexual preferences to homosexual ones, and use the homosexual act as "a medium of spiritual friendship." Order members from all over Britain attended this meeting and this 'doctrine', which, due to Kennedy's status as second in command, would certainly have been recognized as the 'official party line', and it continued to be disseminated in FWBO centres at local, national and international levels amongst those considered ready.
In response to the Guardian printing the above, Kennedy argues he did not intend that he be understood as advocating the choice of lifestyle outlined and the FWBO have claimed that his words do not represent a suggestion that people should become homosexual. It is true that the idea of homosexual activity is not overtly advocated within the context of Kennedy's speech. In fact what is actually under discussion are those factors existent within the Order which motivate the Order members to spend time with new converts. Kennedy identifies these as love and compassion ('genuine sympathy'), 'personal interest', and 'duty'. Having dispensed with love, compassion and a sense of duty in a few sentences, Kennedy concentrates on 'personal interest' as the FWBO's most powerful means of enhancing the bonds between teacher and student. His quotations above then outline what that 'personal interest' entails.
That Kennedy was referring to the FWBO and not actual Buddhist traditions is certain. The topic of the speech was the men's ordination process within the FWBO, his experience of genuine Buddhist traditions is minimal, and finally, the concept of a spiritual teacher having a sexual relationship with a student as a medium of spiritual growth is not a feature of any true Buddhist tradition. His speech then, may not represent an overt advocation of homosexuality. However, it does represent a clear admission on Kennedy's part that the relationship between many of the FWBO's senior members and their male disciples is of a sexual nature and that such practices are considered acceptable within the Order. He concludes by again reiterating the view that heterosexual relationships are of benefit neither to the individual nor the Order. Thus, though avocation of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is not overt, it is clearly implicit.
That such practices have nothing to do with Buddhism was confirmed by the Dalai Lama recently when he pointed out that, "From the Buddhist point of view, men to men (sex) and women to women is... considered sexual misconduct" and "a sexual act is proper when the couple use the organs created for sexual intercourse and nothing else." [53] This outraged numerous gay Buddhists who demanded that the Dalai Lama re-think his views on the subject. These, however, are not solely the Dalai Lama's views but the teachings of the historical Buddha and, as the Dalai Lama pointed out, he does not have the authority to re-interpret Buddhist scripture. Sangharakshita on the other hand clearly does feel he possesses such authority.
Confirmation of the Buddhist stance on sexual acts other than straight heterosexual intercourse is easily obtainable through examining any authoritative Buddhist text concerning the practice of moral discipline, and yet the FWBO portray the Dalai Lama's above pronouncements as "... the Dalai Lama's attitude to homosexuality" [54] and "traditional Tibetan views on homosexuality." [55] Furthermore, in an attempt to distance the Dalai Lama's views from those of 'real' Buddhists in the same publication, we are told that "Heinrich Harrer who became the Dalai Lama's tutor.... recently admitted he was a member of Hitler's S.S. before he escaped to Tibet." [56] The intended inference is clear: the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality are not Buddhist ones but a mixture of Tibetan 'homophobia' and those of someone educated and influenced by the Nazi party. This seems somewhat rich, coming as it does from an organization that relies so heavily on the philosophy of Nietzsche, one of the most important progenitors of Nazism.
Not surprisingly, I have yet to find an FWBO publication that delineates clearly what constitutes sexual misconduct in Buddhism. Certainly nowhere is their any reference to acts other than intercourse being considered a breach of morality, despite this being so throughout orthodox Buddhist writings. The FWBO however, now claim that the Dalai Lama "appears to acknowledge(?), there is nothing in the basic principles of Buddhist ethics to indicate that homosexuality is better or worse than heterosexuality." [57] True, the Buddha's teaching does not refer to homosexual activity per se. (How could it when the term 'homosexual' was only coined in the late 19th century?) But it certainly does point out that all potential sexual acts committed between members of the same sex, as well as all acts other than straight sexual intercourse between heterosexuals are, from the Buddhist viewpoint, considered to be sexual misconduct.
In an obvious attempt to undermine the position of the Dalai Lama in the eyes of new Buddhists, the FWBO advise, "�western Buddhists need to be guided by basic principles of Dharma, rather than looking to the Dalai Lama as a source of ultimate authority." [58] Should their members decide to take their advice, the 'Buddhists' of the FWBO would find that the true Buddha Dharma very clearly considers all acts which employ orifices other than those designed for sexual intercourse to be sexual misconduct and the cause of the creation of negative rather than positive karmic seeds. Such doctrines are completely contradicted by the 'Buddhism' of the FWBO. Sangharakshita clearly feels more able to comment on what does and does not constitute negative karma than the Dalai Lama and even the Buddha himself.
Some might argue that the incorporation of a doctrine of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is necessary in a society which has changed so much since the time of the Buddha but, quite apart from the fact that such methods totally contradict any known Buddhist doctrine, evidence indicates that the consequences of the inclusion of such can be extremely damaging, indeed even fatal. In March 1990, Matt Evans, an ex-member of the FWBO, died after throwing himself from the Clifton suspension bridge. Matt had lived at their Croydon Buddhist centre from 1984 to 1987. According to his mother, before entering the Order he had been a bright and outgoing young man with a positive attitude towards life; on emerging she described him as "withdrawn and bleak". The senior psychologist who treated Matt for the depression he experienced after leaving the Order assessed his problems "as to a large part resulting from the traumatic effects of his experiences whilst he had been a member of the FWBO". This trauma arose, according to the psychologist's report, because Matthew had felt himself unable to "accept the fundamental principles and practices of the group." Matt felt that senior Order members had attempted to deliberately break down his personality and, after alienating him from his family and women, attempted to coerce him into indulging in homosexual acts, "both by using inducements and by using threats." When Matt found he could not 'overcome' his heterosexual conditioning, he began to see himself as a spiritual failure. The longer he spent within the FWBO, the more deeply entrenched this delusion became. Matt's psychologist concluded that the severe depression that ultimately overwhelmed him before his suicide "stemmed from the years of psychological abuse he had experienced" [59] whilst he was an FWBO member. A postcard from Sangharakshita to Matt, who was clearly experiencing conflict over certain FWBO practices reads, "Briefly, you have to make up your mind if you have really asked for ordination or not. If you have, then you must have faith and allow the pre-ordination process to take its course."[60] One shudders to think what such a process might have entailed.
The main perpetrator of Matt's psychological abuse was Stephen Barnham or 'Padmaraja', a protege of Sangharakshita's who was appointed as Chair at the Croydon Buddhist centre in 1978. Another of Barnham's victims was 'Tim'[61]. He had been invited to join the community of 27 men who lived on the upper two storeys of a relatively small house in Croydon. They lived two or three to a room, sleeping in shifts, and worked on the ground floor in one of the FWBO's so-called 'Right Livelihood' businesses. Tim was allowed to live out of a box on the ground floor where he worked an average of 45 hours for £22.25 per week. He was told to have no contact with family or friends and to keep well away from women and relationships. It was not long before Tim started to feel he was going mad. Barnham told Tim that he felt like this because he was actually gay but was repressing it. As Tim put it, "I began to feel that the meaning of life was bound up with my homosexuality and its repression." Barnham then began telling Tim that his homosexual feelings were actually towards him and claimed that he could solve the problem for him, stating "I'll open up new vistas in you that you don't know about". He then set about solving Tim's problem by anally raping him [62]. (The parallels between the kind of relations the head of the Croydon centre had with his students and those Sangharakshita had with his own students are obvious).
Eventually, Barnham's behaviour became so outrageous that the Order had no choice but to ask for his resignation. His reign had lasted 10 years. Despite knowing that the abuses had been occurring for some time, the FWBO justified not acting earlier by claiming that, if they had, they may have lost control of the centre [63]. Clearly, the organisation's leader considered power and wealth to be more important than the happiness and well being of his followers. Had Sanghrakshita and the FWBO placed the latter above the former, Matt Evans might still be alive today. When the truth about Croydon emerged in the Guardian the FWBO admitted that at least 30 people had been left severely mentally damaged by their experiences there. In their defence, the Order claimed to have made efforts to contact abuse victims and initiate a process of discussion and reconciliation. [64] In Tim's case this amounted to a phone call from an Order member telling him they were sorry about what had happened. Tim received the call three weeks before the Guardian published, when the FWBO were fully aware that he intended to speak to the newspaper and that they were definitely going to publish.
Of course, in the final analysis, it is not of overriding importance that Sangharakshita or a number of those around him are homosexual and it would be wrong to view all of the above as some kind of homophobic witch-hunt. Notwithstanding their view of homosexual acts as non-virtuous, Buddhist societies have traditionally been inclusive and tolerant and homosexuals are not precluded in any manner from Buddhist practice. Rather, what is at issue here is the deceit, manipulation and distortion of Buddhist teachings systematically practised in this regard by Sangharakshita and his retinue in order to legitimize and satisfy their own selfish desires.
This great man, himself born into the Dalit group, secured a full education for himself and played a key role in drafting India's constitution. He is now deceased and his name and legacy are honored.
It has been contended that Sangkarashita, founder of FWBO, linked his name to Dr Ambedkar's work.
Those who want to learn about Dr Ambedkar and those who continue his emancipatory legacy should take care to read Ambedkar's own works and do background research .
[www.ex-cult.org]
Dr. Ambedkar and the Untouchables
Turning to Sangharakshita's links with Dr. Ambedkar's movement, in particular, and quite apart from the unsubstantiated claim that he was Ambedkar's "friend and close adviser", the claim that Sangharakshita officiated at a ceremonial mass conversion of half a million Harijans (Untouchables) to Buddhism, this too has little basis in fact. History tells us that one of the closest ordained advisers to Ambedkar was the eminent Sri Lankan bhikkhu, Dr. H. Saddhatissa, who officiated at the famed mass conversion at Nagpur in October 1956. Dr. Saddhatissa has now passed away, but, when quizzed, Ven. Madagama Vajiragnana, one of his closest contemporaries and colleagues for decades, had no knowledge of Sangharakshita's early involvement in the movement nor of his having officiated at the conversion ceremony. He further stated that Saddhatissa had made no mention of Sangharakshita in relation to the said event on any occasion. Another friend and confidante of Dr. Saddhatissa for many years, R.W., stated that he had never mentioned the presence of Sangharakshita at Nagpur in all the years he had known him.
The conversion episode itself seems to have fallen victim over the years to the blight of exaggeration. Whereas in 1979 we are told that "�over a longer period he personally officiated at the conversion ceremony of 200,000 people" [20], by 1987 Sangharakshita is "said to have officiated at a mass conversion of some 500,000 so-called 'Untouchables'". [21] In order to confirm his presence and status, alleged or otherwise, at Nagpur in October 1956, I decided to consult the November 1956 issue of 'The Maha Bodhi', the journal of the Maha Bodhi Society, at that time one of India's most respected Buddhist organizations. Sangharakshita, being fond of writing numerous articles on his understanding of Buddhism for publication, wrote frequently to 'The Maha Bodhi'; he was therefore not unknown to the Society. Yet, when one examines the report of the famed conversion event, though listing the names of numerous eminent personages present and documenting meticulously the proceedings, no mention of Sangharakshita is made.
An article below that mentioned actually did refer to Sangharakshita and located him in Gangtok, Sikkim, where he was said to have been from the 9th � 12th October. The conversion ceremony at Nagpur took place on the 14th. To travel from Gangtok in Sikkim, which, even today, has no airport, to Nagpur in India, through the Himalayas as the winter of 1956 set in, traversing hundreds of miles of hazardous and barren terrain, and arrive in Nagpur for the ceremony by the 14th would have been physically impossible. Since to travel such a distance was impossible, we can be sure that Sangharakshita was not at Nagpur for the most famous conversion of the 'Untouchables' carried out by Dr. Ambedkar and his associates. The eminent Buddhist historian, Trevor Ling has written that, subsequent to this first conversion, such events became numerous and commonplace [22]. In reality then, Sangharaskshita was not a significant figure in an important Indian historic and religious event. Rather, he assisted at some of the innumerable commonplace conversions which followed it
http://response.fwbo.org/fwbo-files/response11.html
[www.google.com]
The FWBO in India
The FWBO is called Triloka Bauddha Maha Sangha or TBMSG in India. Since about 1979, the FWBO has been trying to extend its influence over the movement of New Buddhists started by Dr Ambedkar in India in 1956.
Dr Ambedkar was born into an untouchable caste Indian family, but gained an education and rose to become Indian Law Minister. He is considered the architect of the Indian Constitution, and is something of a hero to the ex-untouchables, or Dalits as they prefer to be called nowadays. Although the caste system is officially illegal under the Indian constitution, old habits die hard, and shortly before his death in 1956, Dr Ambedkar converted from Hinduism to Buddhism, partly because Buddhism does not have a caste system, and because he saw Buddhist philosophy as offering a better model for the social and spiritual emancipation of the Dalits. Many of Ambedkar�s supporters followed his lead, and the movement of Ambedkarites or New Buddhists now totals around 9 million in India, mostly in Maharashtra. The FWBO/TBMSG comprises only a very small proportion of this total, but they have been growing.
As outlined in the section Dr Ambedkar and the Untouchables in The FWBO Files, Sangharakshita has been trying to pass himself off as the close confidante and advisor of Dr Ambedkar, although the extent of his actual contact with Ambedkar, if any, remains unclear. The FWBO/TBMSG had been having some success in presenting themselves as guardians of Dr Ambedkar�s �Dhamma revolution�, but the publication of the Guardian article and The FWBO Files have had a significant impact on the FWBO�s operations in India. The Guardian article was reprinted in The Sunday Times of India, and the Files have been accessed through the internet, and have been translated into Hindi and Marathi.
The status of a monk is highly revered in India, and Indian FWBO/TBMSG members are particularly concerned about Sangharakshita having continued to wear monk�s robes when visiting India, while still engaging in homosexual �experimentation� in the West, as he has admitted in the Guardian article and elsewhere. They are concerned about the secrecy and deception this has entailed, and also about possible misuse of some of the funds and covenants raised by the FWBO�s �Aid for India� and �Karuna Trust� charities.
As in the UK, the FWBO/TBMSG has been trying to minimise the damage, but 80 or more Indian order members and mitras have resigned or been expelled, and there have been demonstrations, and public burnings of Sangharakshita�s photograph.
Vimalakirti and Bakul's expulsions (2,200 words)
A letter from Subhuti, announcing the expulsion of Vimalakirti and Bakul. In the second paragraph of his letter, Subhuti writes:
'Bhante [Sangharakshita] wrote a letter to Vimalakirti, dated 6th August, a copy of which is appended, telling him that he no longer recognises him as a member of the Order. He wrote another letter, appended hereto, handing on to me his remaining responsibilities for the Order in India, especially for deciding whether or not someone was still a member of the Order. I wrote to Bakul on 14th August, telling him I no longer recognised him as an Order member and to Bodhidharma on 13th, telling him that, unless I heard from him shortly saying he did want to continue as an Order member, he would be considered to have excluded himself. He did [not] contact me, so he is suspended from participation in all order activities until we are able to resolve various issues.'
Sangharakshita, and latterly the people like Subhuti to whom he has handed on his responsibilities, have the power to expel order members who criticise them or their activities. For details of how this control over order membership gives Sangharakshita and his appointees legal control over the FWBO and its assets, see The FWBO as Business
Bakul's letter protesting against his expulsion (1,400 words)
A letter from Dharmachari Bakul (Dharmachari = order member), protesting against his and Vimilakirti�s expulsion. Bakul was the first Indian order member, and is also a qualified Advocate (Barrister) in India.
Resignation letter from 88 Indian FWBO members (800 words)
A letter from 88 FWBO/TBMSG order members and mitras from the Mumbai (Bombay) area, setting out the reasons why they have decided to resign.
http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/fwbofiles.htm#doctrines
THE DOCTRINES OF SANGHARAKSHITA AND THE FWBO
Whereas some of what Sangharakshita and the FWBO teach is Buddhism, albeit somewhat distorted, a number of the doctrines they propound are not Buddhist at all. Indeed both rely heavily on numerous non-Buddhist sources to explain what they feel to be the real essence of Buddhism.
Higher and Lower Beings
FWBO publicity tells us, for instance, that "the real aim of meditation, is to transform consciousness - to make you a higher type of being than you were before you began practising it" [30]. In fact this totally contradicts the true aim of Buddhist meditation, which is not to transform consciousness but to transcend it, taking off all masks rather than exchanging one for another.
In reality, the theory of the individual's potential to achieve a 'higher evolution', a theory which Sangharakshita frequently refers to in his works, has its origins in the works of Nietzsche, one of the FWBO 'founder's' preferred authors. The view that someone who practises Buddhist meditation becomes a 'higher being' IS linked to Buddhism; in fact, the Tibetan rendering of a Sanskrit term for a realised being, 'Arya Pudgala' (Tib. 'Phags pa'i Gang zag) directly translates into English as such. However, without a proper understanding of Buddhist doctrine, this terminology can easily be misinterpreted (cf. the Italian fascist Julius Evola's work 'The Doctrine of Awakening', which, while purportedly Buddhist, actually falls into the same misinterpretive trap as do the FWBO). It is only when one examines the qualities of such a being , that one gains a proper and correct understanding of the term.
When, through developing a deep insight into the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Arising, a person becomes an Arya Pudgala, he or she abandons three spiritual fetters. The first of these fetters is the 'view on the existing group' which causes the belief in a substantial self, an actual independent being existent somewhere within the body-mind continuum. This means that at the point of insight into the actual nature of self, there is no transformation of any individual being from a lower to a higher state. Rather, there is a recognition of the non-existence of any such being, lower or higher. Nietzsche's theory, on the other hand, has as its basis the concept of the evolution of an actual being from a lower to a higher state, 'from man to superman'. If the aim of meditation in the FWBO is "to become a higher type of being than you were before you began practising it", then their philosophy is more reminiscent of the heroic and romantic superhumanism of Nietzsche and Nazi Aryanism, than any Buddhist ideology.
Nietzsche's influence is recurrent in FWBO literature. The title of Subhuti's work, "Women, Men and Angels", written to clarify Sangharakshita's views on women and the relationship between the sexes, is inspired by a quote from Sangharakshita: "Angels are to men as men are to women". Compare this to Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra", wherein he states "As man is to ape, so superman is to man". Whether or not one accepts that the similarity in terminology here indicates a commonality of philosophical view, Sangharakshita's theory of the evolution of the higher individual is unarguably Nietszchean (See his Man & Superman). Recently, Windhorse Press published Order member Sagaramati's work "Nietzsche and Buddhism", a further attempt by the FWBO to establish a commonality of view between the two philosophies. In fact, no such commonality exists, Nietzsche's heroic and romantic superhumanism having nothing whatsoever to do with the idea of ego transcendence, which forms the core of true Buddhist teachings.
Women
Sangharakshita's evolutionary theory of human development, expressed within "Women, Men & Angels" is further based on the idea of "The Hierarchy of Being", a thesis unheard of in orthodox Buddhist circles. It in fact emerged during the Renaissance as the idea of 'The Great Chain of Being', a pseudo Neo-Platonic theory. Despite the non-Buddhist nature of the views expressed in Subhuti's above mentioned work, such views continue to be sold to FWBO followers as Buddhism. What then is the nature of these purportedly Buddhist views?
Women are anchored in a "lower evolution" than men
Women have less "spiritual aptitude" than men
Men are better able to actualize their potential for enlightenment than women
Men are more likely to take up the spiritual life in a fuller sense than women
Men surpass women in their commitment to spiritual life
The domination of men by women is not historical fact but myth:
"The feminist reading of history as the story of woman's oppression and exploitation by man, belongs not to history but to mythology."
"Men have, of course, sometimes suppressed women (and women, men) just as Jews have sometimes enslaved Gentiles (and Gentiles, Jews)." [31]
These arguments are supported by reference to physiology, biology, psychology and social role theory but not by quotations from the Buddha, who never condemned women per se but rather condemned obsession with sex. On the occasions when Buddha did talk about the nature of female existence, he described it as "less advantageous". Male meditators in the wilderness for example, are less likely to be subjected to the ordeal of rape than their female counterparts. Subhuti however, translates "less advantageous" as "less aptitude", a discrepancy which goes unnoticed, even by himself.
In fact, to criticise or look down on women in any way is a major breach of moral discipline in the Buddhist tantric tradition (in which Sangharakshita is supposedly so well versed), wherein it states that all women should be related to as Buddhas. Such breaches of morality are more serious than, for example, a bhikkhu breaking his vow of celibacy, a point to which we shall return later.
The FWBO have cited the existence of a strong women's wing within the Order as evidence of their being no misogyny within the organization [32]. However, the existence of a separate women's wing, in what is a non-monastic environment, actually indicates the existence of both apartheid and sexism in Order hierarchies. The fact that the FWBO has a strong women's wing is no more evidence of a lack of misogyny within it than the existence of strong women's movements in India is evidence of a lack of misogyny and sexism within Indian society. Furthermore, the relative ease with which one can find female ex-Order members who have left because of the above reasons is a clear indicator of what actually goes on behind the egalitarian facade of the FWBO.
In a self-referential system such as that which exists within the FWBO, the founder's writings are considered sacrosanct. In response to accusations of sexism and misogyny in the Guardian (27/10/97), FWBO communications officer Vishvapani argued that, though the views expressed in "Women, Men & Angels" are Sangharakshita's, these views are purely his and not to be taken as official FWBO doctrine. No such disclaimer is evident within the book however, and indeed there is a distinct lack of such in any of the works wherein Sangharakshita puts forth his own very personal interpretations of the meaning of the Buddha's teaching. In such a situation, how could anyone assume anything other than that the views expressed within the work were the views of both the founder, the FWBO and, quite mistakenly, the Buddha himself.
The Family
In the Maha Mangala Sutra, a well known scripture of the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the Buddha declares:
"To support one's father and mother,
To care for one's wife and children,
...This is the highest blessing."
In the Suhrllekha of Nagarjuna, one of the great Buddhist masters of the 1st century C.E., he says,
"The race of one who worships father and mother is in company of that of Brahma and that of preceptors. Through revering them one will win fame and later will attain the higher realms."
Thus, although Buddhism is a religion of renunciation and disentanglement from worldly concerns, family life forms a foundation for the development of virtuous character traits. In the Mahayana tradition for example, appreciation of the mother-child relationship is the very foundation of the development of reciprocal compassion, which ultimately becomes the cause for the achievement of Buddhahood.
Flying in the face of this, the FWBO encourage the undermining and abolition of heterosexual, nuclear family relationships, since these trap men in what the FWBO founder describes as a situation which is "all very much on the animal level" and "a really massive source of conditioning" [33] [see full quote]. (The fact that Dudjom Rinpoche, one of the Tibetan lamas whom he claims as one of his teachers, had a family, has seemingly escaped Sangharakshita's memory). He believes that heterosexual couples engaged in the creation and caring for such a family are "the enemy of the spiritual community" [34][see full quote], indeed in one publication they are described as "the enemy to be destroyed" [35]. The Order have claimed that these views were grossly misinterpreted by the press recently and are in fact simply a dispassionate analysis of the present status quo. In their own terms, "a critique of an institution need not be accompanied by feelings of hostility" [36]. References to the "enemy to be destroyed" however, do not have the ring of dispassionate analysis about them.
Families, according to Sangharakshita, are breeding grounds for child sexual abuse, which, he claims, is "a feature of the nuclear family" [37]. He therefore recommends that FWBO followers create a 'new society' by setting up single sex communities as a direct antidote to the canker of the nuclear family since, "the single sex community is probably our most powerful means of assault on the existing social set up" [38][see full quote] for, "If you set up such communities, you abolish the family at a stroke" [39] [see full quote]. Thus, whereas traditional Buddhist societies have always been inclusive of the family lifestyle, the goal of FWBO Buddhism would appear to be the destruction of society as we know it.
If a person is not capable of abandoning his ties to the existing social set up, then, so as to prevent it 'conditioning' them too much, Sangharakshita advises that they should "be very careful not to spend too much time with the person you are having a sexual relationship with, and preferably not live with them" [40]. Subhuti has even gone so far as to recommend casual sex with a number of partners as an antidote to attachment. [41] Unfortunately such advice has no scriptural origin. Apparently then, apart from the sexual content, heterosexual relationships are of no spiritual value whatsoever. Sangharakshita has clearly either not read the above scriptures, well known as they are in the Buddhist traditions in which he was supposedly so well educated, or alternatively, he chooses to ignore them, perhaps feeling he knows more about heterosexual, nuclear family relationships than the Buddha. Yet, whereas the Buddha cherished his mother, was married previous to his adoption of the homeless life and had numerous concubines, there is no record of Sangharakshita ever having had a heterosexual relationship. His contempt for his own family is evident from his complete lack of reference to them as well as his thoroughly hostile anti-family philosophy which is propitiated throughout the FWBO world as the teaching of Buddha.
The Proper Foundation for the Spiritual Life - the Homosexual Relationship
Having alienated followers from their families, women and heterosexual relationships, Order members are encouraged to engage in homosexual relationships since, within the FWBO, such relationships are considered to be part of the path to enlightenment. Persons involved at a more superficial level might find it genuinely difficult to accept what goes on within the inner circle of the organization, but the fact is that once a person becomes an Order member (and in certain cases, even before), efforts may be made to convert the said person from heterosexuality to homosexuality.
Why? FWBO 'Buddhist' theory runs in accord with the following argument:
1) One is separated from the experience of enlightenment by conditioning.
2) Heterosexuality is conditioning.
3) If heterosexuals engage in homosexual acts they will break down their conditioning.
4) Homosexuality is therefore a means to achieving enlightenment since it causes one to abandon conditioning.
Sangharakshita has claimed publicly that his view is that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of 'conditioning' and that "We don't say that you should be homosexual.... or you should have a wife or should not" [42]. (See the above section re FWBO views on the family and heterosexual relationships to determine whether or not Order members are advised as to whether they should or should not have a wife). However, those who have known Sangharakshita personally speak of a person whose views totally contradict the above statement and furthermore, of someone whose own homosexual desires have actually carried over into the philosophy and teachings of the FWBO.
One such person was Mark Dunlop who met Sangharakshita in April 1972 when he was 22 years old and the FWBO leader was 47. By June of that year, Mark had been invited to dine with Sangharakshita, and by July he had suggested that Mark move in with him. Thinking this was a gesture of friendship rather than the first stages of seduction, Mark accepted. However, as their friendship progressed, Sangharakshita repeatedly returned to the topic of homosexuality and Mark began to feel that he was 'after him' sexually.
A few weeks after he had moved in, Sangharakshita explained the 'Buddhist' concept of 'daka' to Mark. A daka, according to Sangharakshita, was an inspirational muse, someone who was 'more than just an ordinary friend'. He told Mark that, in the tantric tradition, there were three levels of dakas. Firstly, there were those who inspired energy through a glance of the eyes. Secondly there were those who inspired through the sound of their voice and finally, there was the third kind, who inspired through physical contact. The purpose of this inspiration was to give a teacher more energy so that he, in turn, could pass that energy on to his students by giving them spiritually more powerful teachings and initiations. Sangharakshita suggested to Mark that he was a daka. When Mark told him that he'd much rather be the first kind, Sangharakshita told him "Actually, I think you're the third kind."
This explanation of the concept of daka is actually a perversion of teachings explaining the four levels of tantra. Within these four levels the manner of relating between the visualized image of a deity and the meditator progresses from glancing to physical contact through holding hands and so on [43]. The concept of daka appears only at the fourth and highest level of tantra, albeit infrequently, mainly to indicate that there is a male counterpart to the female "dakini", the real focus of the higher tantras. Sangharakshita mixed these genuine doctrines together with his own explanation of 'Buddhism' in such a way as to legitimise his own sexual desires and convince others, in this case Mark Dunlop, that engagement in homosexual activity with him was an extremely powerful and orthodox Buddhist practice.
As well as using the 'daka' argument, Sangharakshita also employed the concept of 'conditioning', a central concept which frequently manifests in his works, which supposedly translates the original Pali term 'Paticca Samutpadda', which actually means 'Dependant Origination'. Sangharakshita chooses to use 'conditioning' in this context, despite the fact that it does not convey the full meaning of this fundamental Buddhist concept, as well as its having other, more negative connotations in the Western psychoanalytic context. In reality the idea of conditioning is Pavlovian, and here, is more akin to the Scientologist's doctrine of 'Engrams', unconscious conditionings from previous lives which block one's energy and prevent one from realising ones full potential. The decision to use the term actually indicates an ignorance of the full significance of the original concept. Clearly, either Sangharakshita knows that the term is an incorrect translation and continues to use it regardless or, alternatively, he does not know that the term is incorrect; either alternative poses several questions.
Sangharakshita employs further terms and techniques relied upon by L. Ron Hubbard's organization, The Church of Scientology. The categories of reactive and creative being (Sangharakshita, Mind: Reactive & Creative, Windhorse, 1977) were an essential part of Hubbard's vocabulary, as indeed they are Sangharakshita's. 'Communication exercises', a favourite technique of the Scientologists, are employed by The FWBO in their classes. Again, neither the terminology nor the practice are locatable within any recognized Buddhist tradition. In 1987 Sangharakshita wrote:
"Unfortunately, those seeking to understand Buddhism only too often turn, or are directed, not to the canonical literature of Buddhism but to works which have little connection with that literature, if indeed they have any connection with it at all." [44]
Apart from recommending Nietzsche, Sangharakshita advises students to read such well known Buddhist classics (?) as Eagleton's "Greek Love" (a favourite of the founder), Porphypry's "Life of Plotinus" and Alan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind", a critique of pseudo liberalism in the US [45]. What connection any of these have with canonical Buddhist literature is not yet clear.
The FWBO founder told Mark Dunlop that his resistance to homosexuality was the result of 'conditioning'. Quoting Kinsey, he claimed that research had shown that a large number of men were actually bisexual but were unaware of it due to social and parental conditioning. Mark was told that his aversion to homosexuality actually showed how deeply conditioned he was and that the only way to progress spiritually and emotionally was to overcome his revulsion and accept that he was, in fact, bisexual. And so, in awe of his spiritual teacher and convinced by arguments supported by the wisdom of an ancient spiritual tradition and modern scientific research, Mark Dunlop, albeit reluctantly, succumbed.
The sexual relationship mainly consisted of Sangharakshita lying on top of Mark and masturbating himself against him to the point of orgasm. Mark would then remove the semen with a towel he kept under his bed for the purpose. Usually all this occurred on a twice weekly basis. As he became more wary of his intentions and began to realise that he had been duped, Mark would sometimes object to the advances. Sangharakshita would get his way by talking about the importance of trust and 'spiritual friendship.' On two occasions he clutched at his chest, saying "Oh, my heart" (clearly overwhelmed by the pain of rejection).
It was not until 1976 that Mark Dunlop managed to break away from Sangharakshita. Retrospectively he views the period as one wherein he was repeatedly raped by someone who had used spiritual and psychological violence, rather than plain old physical force, to subdue him. As a consequence of his experiences, Mark has, for the last 20 years, had to endure a succession of bouts of severe depression and, despite having received the help and advice of psychiatric health professionals, he remains severely emotionally damaged and unable to reintegrate into society. The consultant psychiatrist who treated Mark recognized the FWBO as a cult and declared his symptoms to be identical to those she had treated in numerous other ex-cult members [46].
Had Sangharakshita restricted his attentions solely to Dunlop, it might be claimed that he had fallen victim to a momentary lapse of reason, albeit one that lasted for four years. Unfortunately however he did not. Maurice Cooke or 'Yuveraj', Sangharakshita's subsequent 'close disciple', spoke of undergoing similar experiences at his hands and indeed has subsequently endured a prolonged period of mental difficulties as a consequence of his experiences. Furthermore, as mentioned above, more accusations of attempted seduction by the FWBO founder have appeared on the Internet since publication of the Guardian article.
When the Guardian offered Sangharakshita the opportunity to reply to the allegations and clear his name before they went to press, he refused to be interviewed or make comment of any kind. Indeed he continues to refuse to discuss the matter with anyone at all, even the group of young men with whom he presently lives. This, according to an FWBO reply to the Guardian article, is because to do so "would involve Sangharakshita in an exercise of disloyalty towards a former friend." [47] Unlike Sangharakshita, a number of the men he seduced or attempted to seduce during the 1970's and 80's consider truth to be of more importance than loyalty. One wonders how many of his victims will have to come forward before Sangharakshita deigns to answer their accusations.
Incredibly, in an attempt to defend Sangharakshita, the same document quoted above tells us:
"In his early years in Britain, Sangharakshita.... explored a number of different...routes to deeper human experience, even perhaps, spiritual experience, such as sex and psychedelic drugs, while of course continuing to meditate, study, and practise within the Buddhist tradition.[!] These explorations were always of a personal kind. He considered them to be taking place within the context of friendships and did not advocate their use by his disciples." [48]
Which 'Buddhist tradition' advocates that 'monks' engage in a mixture of sexual misconduct, LSD 'trips', and meditation, as the path to enlightenment remains a mystery. More importantly, the above represents a direct admission on the part of the FWBO that, whilst manifestly lying by posing as a Buddhist monk, their 'founder' was having sex and taking drugs. The sheer hypocrisy of Sangharakshita is made further apparent by the claim that all of these things took place within the context of 'friendships' rather than being encouraged amongst disciples. Quite apart from the fact that most of Sangharakshita's friends were his disciples at this point, the sanctiminious attitude of "don't do as I do, do as I say" is an inexcusable one in any of the genuine Buddhist traditions since all of these require that a true teacher maintains pure moral discipline as a prerequisite qualification.
Sangharakshita's personal philosophy of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is not one that he employs solely at a microcosmic level for the satisfaction of his own personal desires. His methods have been propagated macrocosmically throughout the FWBO and it is clear that the practice is common to other Order members.
The first stage in the process of conversion to homosexuality is, as in Mark Dunlops case, convincing people that they are nothing other than a mass of conditioning. Sangharakshita writes:
"...we are just a mass of conditioning: a class conditioning, plus an economic conditioning, plus a religious conditioning, plus a national conditioning, plus a linguistic conditioning. There is very little in fact... that is really, in a word, us." [49]
Elsewhere he states:
"Bodhi (Enlightenment)... consists in taking a very deep, clear and profound look into oneself, and seeing how, on all the different levels of one's being one is conditioned, governed by the reactive mind, reacting mechanically, automatically, on account of past psychological conditionings of which, only too often, one is largely unconscious." [50]
The next step is to convince people that their heterosexuality is the result of conditioning, apparently the main reason for our unenlightened state, as indeed equally, is the fear of homosexuality. Sangharakshita writes, "...men find it quite difficult to experience physical contact with other men because of their fear of homosexuality" (i.e. 'conditioning'). In order to counter this, "They must break down their fear of homosexuality by facing it and by not being afraid of sexual contact with other men." Men, "have to realise that physical and even sexual contact between men is just physical or sexual contact between men. It is a quite ordinary thing and men's fear of that should not be allowed to get in the way of one's friendships." Why? Because fears of physical contact with other men, "...very often limit the possibilities of friendships with other men. And so because they don't develop friendships with other men, they don't develop spiritual friendships with other men. And because they don't develop spiritual friendships with other men, they're not able to develop what the Buddha declared to be the most important element in spiritual life." [51]
Having convinced one's audience that their heterosexuality and fear of homosexuality is simply the result of conditioning and that this is preventing them from progressing spiritually, the next step is to convince them that it is possible to transcend the mundanity of normal 'conditioned' relationships by engaging in a 'spiritual' homosexual relationship.
In a speech given to an FWBO conference on the ordination of men in July 1986, a speech subsequently reprinted in Shabda, an FWBO magazine of limited distribution intended for Order members, Alex Kennedy (Subhuti), Sangharakshita's spokesman and second in command, stated:
"� within the context of the spiritual community...sexual interest on the part of a male Order member for a male mitra ('friend') can create a connection which may allow kalyana mitratata ('spiritual friendship') to develop. Some, of course, (i.e. homosexual members) are predisposed to this attraction. Others have deliberately chosen to change their sexual preferences in order to use sex as a medium of kalyana mitrata and to stay clear of the dangers of male-female relationships without giving up sex." [52]
"Many people do not feel able to do this, whether as a result of taboo or reluctance to give up a conditioned predisposition."
Thus, for heterosexuals, the key to spiritual friendship, "the most important element in spiritual life" and the foundation of the path to Enlightenment, is to transcend "taboos", give up one's "conditioned predispositions", change ones sexual preferences to homosexual ones, and use the homosexual act as "a medium of spiritual friendship." Order members from all over Britain attended this meeting and this 'doctrine', which, due to Kennedy's status as second in command, would certainly have been recognized as the 'official party line', and it continued to be disseminated in FWBO centres at local, national and international levels amongst those considered ready.
In response to the Guardian printing the above, Kennedy argues he did not intend that he be understood as advocating the choice of lifestyle outlined and the FWBO have claimed that his words do not represent a suggestion that people should become homosexual. It is true that the idea of homosexual activity is not overtly advocated within the context of Kennedy's speech. In fact what is actually under discussion are those factors existent within the Order which motivate the Order members to spend time with new converts. Kennedy identifies these as love and compassion ('genuine sympathy'), 'personal interest', and 'duty'. Having dispensed with love, compassion and a sense of duty in a few sentences, Kennedy concentrates on 'personal interest' as the FWBO's most powerful means of enhancing the bonds between teacher and student. His quotations above then outline what that 'personal interest' entails.
That Kennedy was referring to the FWBO and not actual Buddhist traditions is certain. The topic of the speech was the men's ordination process within the FWBO, his experience of genuine Buddhist traditions is minimal, and finally, the concept of a spiritual teacher having a sexual relationship with a student as a medium of spiritual growth is not a feature of any true Buddhist tradition. His speech then, may not represent an overt advocation of homosexuality. However, it does represent a clear admission on Kennedy's part that the relationship between many of the FWBO's senior members and their male disciples is of a sexual nature and that such practices are considered acceptable within the Order. He concludes by again reiterating the view that heterosexual relationships are of benefit neither to the individual nor the Order. Thus, though avocation of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is not overt, it is clearly implicit.
That such practices have nothing to do with Buddhism was confirmed by the Dalai Lama recently when he pointed out that, "From the Buddhist point of view, men to men (sex) and women to women is... considered sexual misconduct" and "a sexual act is proper when the couple use the organs created for sexual intercourse and nothing else." [53] This outraged numerous gay Buddhists who demanded that the Dalai Lama re-think his views on the subject. These, however, are not solely the Dalai Lama's views but the teachings of the historical Buddha and, as the Dalai Lama pointed out, he does not have the authority to re-interpret Buddhist scripture. Sangharakshita on the other hand clearly does feel he possesses such authority.
Confirmation of the Buddhist stance on sexual acts other than straight heterosexual intercourse is easily obtainable through examining any authoritative Buddhist text concerning the practice of moral discipline, and yet the FWBO portray the Dalai Lama's above pronouncements as "... the Dalai Lama's attitude to homosexuality" [54] and "traditional Tibetan views on homosexuality." [55] Furthermore, in an attempt to distance the Dalai Lama's views from those of 'real' Buddhists in the same publication, we are told that "Heinrich Harrer who became the Dalai Lama's tutor.... recently admitted he was a member of Hitler's S.S. before he escaped to Tibet." [56] The intended inference is clear: the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality are not Buddhist ones but a mixture of Tibetan 'homophobia' and those of someone educated and influenced by the Nazi party. This seems somewhat rich, coming as it does from an organization that relies so heavily on the philosophy of Nietzsche, one of the most important progenitors of Nazism.
Not surprisingly, I have yet to find an FWBO publication that delineates clearly what constitutes sexual misconduct in Buddhism. Certainly nowhere is their any reference to acts other than intercourse being considered a breach of morality, despite this being so throughout orthodox Buddhist writings. The FWBO however, now claim that the Dalai Lama "appears to acknowledge(?), there is nothing in the basic principles of Buddhist ethics to indicate that homosexuality is better or worse than heterosexuality." [57] True, the Buddha's teaching does not refer to homosexual activity per se. (How could it when the term 'homosexual' was only coined in the late 19th century?) But it certainly does point out that all potential sexual acts committed between members of the same sex, as well as all acts other than straight sexual intercourse between heterosexuals are, from the Buddhist viewpoint, considered to be sexual misconduct.
In an obvious attempt to undermine the position of the Dalai Lama in the eyes of new Buddhists, the FWBO advise, "�western Buddhists need to be guided by basic principles of Dharma, rather than looking to the Dalai Lama as a source of ultimate authority." [58] Should their members decide to take their advice, the 'Buddhists' of the FWBO would find that the true Buddha Dharma very clearly considers all acts which employ orifices other than those designed for sexual intercourse to be sexual misconduct and the cause of the creation of negative rather than positive karmic seeds. Such doctrines are completely contradicted by the 'Buddhism' of the FWBO. Sangharakshita clearly feels more able to comment on what does and does not constitute negative karma than the Dalai Lama and even the Buddha himself.
Some might argue that the incorporation of a doctrine of homosexuality as the path to enlightenment is necessary in a society which has changed so much since the time of the Buddha but, quite apart from the fact that such methods totally contradict any known Buddhist doctrine, evidence indicates that the consequences of the inclusion of such can be extremely damaging, indeed even fatal. In March 1990, Matt Evans, an ex-member of the FWBO, died after throwing himself from the Clifton suspension bridge. Matt had lived at their Croydon Buddhist centre from 1984 to 1987. According to his mother, before entering the Order he had been a bright and outgoing young man with a positive attitude towards life; on emerging she described him as "withdrawn and bleak". The senior psychologist who treated Matt for the depression he experienced after leaving the Order assessed his problems "as to a large part resulting from the traumatic effects of his experiences whilst he had been a member of the FWBO". This trauma arose, according to the psychologist's report, because Matthew had felt himself unable to "accept the fundamental principles and practices of the group." Matt felt that senior Order members had attempted to deliberately break down his personality and, after alienating him from his family and women, attempted to coerce him into indulging in homosexual acts, "both by using inducements and by using threats." When Matt found he could not 'overcome' his heterosexual conditioning, he began to see himself as a spiritual failure. The longer he spent within the FWBO, the more deeply entrenched this delusion became. Matt's psychologist concluded that the severe depression that ultimately overwhelmed him before his suicide "stemmed from the years of psychological abuse he had experienced" [59] whilst he was an FWBO member. A postcard from Sangharakshita to Matt, who was clearly experiencing conflict over certain FWBO practices reads, "Briefly, you have to make up your mind if you have really asked for ordination or not. If you have, then you must have faith and allow the pre-ordination process to take its course."[60] One shudders to think what such a process might have entailed.
The main perpetrator of Matt's psychological abuse was Stephen Barnham or 'Padmaraja', a protege of Sangharakshita's who was appointed as Chair at the Croydon Buddhist centre in 1978. Another of Barnham's victims was 'Tim'[61]. He had been invited to join the community of 27 men who lived on the upper two storeys of a relatively small house in Croydon. They lived two or three to a room, sleeping in shifts, and worked on the ground floor in one of the FWBO's so-called 'Right Livelihood' businesses. Tim was allowed to live out of a box on the ground floor where he worked an average of 45 hours for £22.25 per week. He was told to have no contact with family or friends and to keep well away from women and relationships. It was not long before Tim started to feel he was going mad. Barnham told Tim that he felt like this because he was actually gay but was repressing it. As Tim put it, "I began to feel that the meaning of life was bound up with my homosexuality and its repression." Barnham then began telling Tim that his homosexual feelings were actually towards him and claimed that he could solve the problem for him, stating "I'll open up new vistas in you that you don't know about". He then set about solving Tim's problem by anally raping him [62]. (The parallels between the kind of relations the head of the Croydon centre had with his students and those Sangharakshita had with his own students are obvious).
Eventually, Barnham's behaviour became so outrageous that the Order had no choice but to ask for his resignation. His reign had lasted 10 years. Despite knowing that the abuses had been occurring for some time, the FWBO justified not acting earlier by claiming that, if they had, they may have lost control of the centre [63]. Clearly, the organisation's leader considered power and wealth to be more important than the happiness and well being of his followers. Had Sanghrakshita and the FWBO placed the latter above the former, Matt Evans might still be alive today. When the truth about Croydon emerged in the Guardian the FWBO admitted that at least 30 people had been left severely mentally damaged by their experiences there. In their defence, the Order claimed to have made efforts to contact abuse victims and initiate a process of discussion and reconciliation. [64] In Tim's case this amounted to a phone call from an Order member telling him they were sorry about what had happened. Tim received the call three weeks before the Guardian published, when the FWBO were fully aware that he intended to speak to the newspaper and that they were definitely going to publish.
Of course, in the final analysis, it is not of overriding importance that Sangharakshita or a number of those around him are homosexual and it would be wrong to view all of the above as some kind of homophobic witch-hunt. Notwithstanding their view of homosexual acts as non-virtuous, Buddhist societies have traditionally been inclusive and tolerant and homosexuals are not precluded in any manner from Buddhist practice. Rather, what is at issue here is the deceit, manipulation and distortion of Buddhist teachings systematically practised in this regard by Sangharakshita and his retinue in order to legitimize and satisfy their own selfish desires.
Re: An Alert For Persons Interested In Dr Ambedkar--research FWVO
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 13, 2013 05:58AM
For those who want to learn what Dr Ambedkar taught, this book is a good place to start. Make sure editors and publishers are not subject to ideological biases.
Publisher: Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India, 2011
The Buddha and His Dhamma was B.R. Ambedkar's last work. Published posthumously, it presented a radical reorientation of Buddhist thought and literature, aptly called navayana. . It deals with Ambedkar's conceptualization of Buddhism and the possibilities it offered for liberation and upliftment of the Dalits. It presents his reflections on the life of the Buddha, his teachings, and the spread of Buddhism by interweaving anecdotes with detailed analyses of the religion's basic tenets. The... (Buddha Buddhist Buddhism Dhamma Dharma Religion)
[www.bookfinder.com]
This list indicates Dr Ambedkar's vast range of activity.
[www.bookfinder.com]
B.R. Ambedkar
¡Castes in India
¡Pakistan or Partition of India
¡Riddles In Hinduism
¡The Buddha and His Dhamma: A Critical Edition
¡The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar
¡Ultrasonic Coal-Wash for De-Ashing and De-Sulfurization
¡Ambedkar: Autobiographical Notes
¡Annihilation of Caste
¡Annihilation of Caste With a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi
¡Annihilation of Caste. An undelivered speech. Edited by Mulk Raj Anand.
¡Buddha and His Dhamma
¡Buddha or Karl Marx
¡Buddha or Marx
¡Castes in India (Classic Reprint)
¡Conversion As Emancipation
¡Dr B.R. Ambedkar, 1891-1991: Patriot, philosopher and statesman
¡Federation Versus Freedom
¡Gandhi & Gandhism
¡IDEAS OF A NATION: B. R. AMBEDKAR
¡Lessons From The Grand Rounds: A Pediatric Approach
¡Maharashtra as a linguistic province;: Statement submitted to the Linguistic Provinces Commission
¡Mr. Gandhi and The Emancipation of The Untouchables
¡Pakistan, or Partition of India - the Indian Political What's What
¡Philosophy of Hinduism
¡Poona Pact the Epic of Human Rights
¡Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah
¡Reminiscences of Untouchability
¡Riddles in Hinduism: Writings and Speeches Vol 4
¡Social Justice and Its Ancient Indian Base
¡Speeches At Round Table Conference
¡Swaraj and The Depressed Classes
¡The Untouchables
¡The untouchables: Who were they and why they became untouchables?
¡Thoughts on linguistic states
¡Thoughts on Pakistan
¡What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables?
¡What The Buddha Taught
¡Who Were the Shudras?: How They come to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society
¡Words of Freedom:Ideas of a Nation : B. R. Ambedkar
Publisher: Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India, 2011
The Buddha and His Dhamma was B.R. Ambedkar's last work. Published posthumously, it presented a radical reorientation of Buddhist thought and literature, aptly called navayana. . It deals with Ambedkar's conceptualization of Buddhism and the possibilities it offered for liberation and upliftment of the Dalits. It presents his reflections on the life of the Buddha, his teachings, and the spread of Buddhism by interweaving anecdotes with detailed analyses of the religion's basic tenets. The... (Buddha Buddhist Buddhism Dhamma Dharma Religion)
[www.bookfinder.com]
This list indicates Dr Ambedkar's vast range of activity.
[www.bookfinder.com]
B.R. Ambedkar
¡Castes in India
¡Pakistan or Partition of India
¡Riddles In Hinduism
¡The Buddha and His Dhamma: A Critical Edition
¡The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar
¡Ultrasonic Coal-Wash for De-Ashing and De-Sulfurization
¡Ambedkar: Autobiographical Notes
¡Annihilation of Caste
¡Annihilation of Caste With a Reply to Mahatma Gandhi
¡Annihilation of Caste. An undelivered speech. Edited by Mulk Raj Anand.
¡Buddha and His Dhamma
¡Buddha or Karl Marx
¡Buddha or Marx
¡Castes in India (Classic Reprint)
¡Conversion As Emancipation
¡Dr B.R. Ambedkar, 1891-1991: Patriot, philosopher and statesman
¡Federation Versus Freedom
¡Gandhi & Gandhism
¡IDEAS OF A NATION: B. R. AMBEDKAR
¡Lessons From The Grand Rounds: A Pediatric Approach
¡Maharashtra as a linguistic province;: Statement submitted to the Linguistic Provinces Commission
¡Mr. Gandhi and The Emancipation of The Untouchables
¡Pakistan, or Partition of India - the Indian Political What's What
¡Philosophy of Hinduism
¡Poona Pact the Epic of Human Rights
¡Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah
¡Reminiscences of Untouchability
¡Riddles in Hinduism: Writings and Speeches Vol 4
¡Social Justice and Its Ancient Indian Base
¡Speeches At Round Table Conference
¡Swaraj and The Depressed Classes
¡The Untouchables
¡The untouchables: Who were they and why they became untouchables?
¡Thoughts on linguistic states
¡Thoughts on Pakistan
¡What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables?
¡What The Buddha Taught
¡Who Were the Shudras?: How They come to be the Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society
¡Words of Freedom:Ideas of a Nation : B. R. Ambedkar
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.