RR.com is not a Buddhist venue. So to do a Dharma Debate, another place on the internet is best.
Its precisely because facing the behavior of a teacher is not mere complaining but actually is made almost impossible in Buddhist settings
that so very many Buddhists have had to seek refuge here at RR.com
, a non Buddhist venue, in order to apply the full resources of insight to teachers.
RR.com is used by persons from all backgrounds. It is not a Buddhist venue in the strict sense of the word.
So, it might be best to create a Dharma Debate venue some place other than RR.com
We dont want to create an impression that one has to have exalted qualifications before one has the right to express concerns about this or any other group where one has been personally affected at first hand.
This DW thread has required a high degree of protection from the moderator because so very many disruptive persons have showed up in response to the attempts by Emma C and Outsider and others to express their concerns about DW.
If one were to turn this thread into a Dharma Debate forum, it might have the effect of making it an intimidating place for persons who fear they dont have the qualifications as advanced scholars.
**It is because so very many have had trouble rectifying problems in these Tibetan Buddhist settings
that they have had to come here to this non Buddhist venue of RR.com--a venue that has been very frequently subject to disruption and where Mr Ross has had to intervene over twenty times.
need to have a Geshe
degree or have completed a 3 year retreat .
RR.com exists for a more modest yet more radical purpose--a place to utilize American First Amendment rights by sharing first hand personal experience about DW.
Most people who come here have not been through 3 year retreats, or gone to Buddhist universities (shedras).
One potential problem if this Ole thread became a Dharma Debate ground is that this might scare away people who dont have ultra advanced background in Tibetan Buddhism by making it seem that one has no right to report first hand personal experiences or misgivings about DW unless one first has acquired years of advanced study.
This could have the unintended effect of making this thread an intimidating and confusing place for persons to visit.
And..all too often when people try to report problems in their sanghas, they are often shamed into silence by being told they first need to deepen their practice.
By the time they have deepened their practice, the problems in the sanga have had time to get worse.
Then, if one has mustered the necessary academic background, one is often told, 'You are being too intellectual.'
So if some wish to deal with DW using the classic Dharma Debate protocol, the best thing is probably to create a separate internet venue for those interested and qualified.
degree or have completed a 3 year retreat to have a right to speak up and exercise American First Amendment rights by sharing first hand personal experience about DW.
This is merely my input as an ordinary member of RR.com.
I am not speaking for Mr Ross or for the website.
Mr Ross is the moderator and has final say.
I thought , what is needed is a Dharma Debate contention in the internet .
Instead of complaining about a person/teacher,
we can take the content of both teachings taught in Diamondway and Kagdyu school and to draw the comparisons.
What is needed now is the deep analysis, to descend from the superficiality / complainants about a person or a behaviour and to plunge into the deeper meaning of the all.
And what is needed more is a continuous debate, based on real experience, observations and to report the recording in the internet!
The Dharma Debate will work only if there is a sincere desire to face the full truth--including a willingness to face the possibity that harmful patterns of behavior are originating from a teacher in whom supreme authority has been vested.
If one is using Dharma Debate to examine everything EXCEPT the teacher, then Dharma Debate will be an evasion of Dharma instead of serving the Dharma.
The problem with Vajrayana Buddhism and many forms of Buddhism is there is such a tradition of deference to teachers and so much so that they are exempt from accountability and no mechanism exists by which to speak up if problems appear in their early stages.
This tradition of making the teacher exempt from scrutiny in the event of trouble would ensure that Dharma Debate would be applied to distract attention from the chains of cause and effect that arise from the teacher.
And this evasion would mean the teacher is being treated as someone supreme and inherantly separately existing, someone whose behaviors must never be examined and traced and to treat someone as inherantly separately existing and exempt from scrutiny, is delusion in action--and would mean the Dharma Debate itself is an exercise in Delusion.
So if your project of Dharma Debate is to succeed, it must mean everything is to be examined fearlessly, including the teacher.
All too often in troubled sanghas, there exists no legitimate and effective way to name and identify harmful chains of cause and effect that originate from the behavior of troubled teachers in whom supreme authority is vested.
If a Dharma Debate is proposed, not from fearlessness, but covertly, from fear of fully examinining everything, including actions originating from the teacher, and if the Dharma debate is proposed to silence dissent from low ranking or new persons who have not yet been trained to slavish obedience, as a way to restrict discussion within limits that never challenge the teacher's hegemony, the motives for proposing Dharma debate are themselves generated by afflictive emotion and the Dharma Debate will serve to protect the interests of powerful persons and stifle reform.
This said, RR.com is available as a place of refuge to those who have not been trained to stifle dissent and who need a place to report what they have seen first hand.
And that so very many attempts have been made to disrupt discussion here indicate that there is something effective about the RR.com venue that should remain available to all persons of good faith, even those who have not had 3 year retreats or the time to get Geshe degrees.
By the time someone is that far into Vajryayana Buddhism they may have lost all ability to relate objectively to teachers and lost any ability to speak up if a teacher is falling short of the Bodhisattva Precepts..Stephen Butterfield was a Vajrayana practitioner and in his book The Double Mirror, reported with regret that his commitment to Buddhism made him highly insightful about power abuses in non Buddhist groups, but he lost his ability to be just as insightful about power abuses within his own Buddhist community
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 12:45AM by corboy.