What I learned when joining a new group is that they were always horrified at how badly I was treated in the last group, and then they told me to forget about them, and then each time i heard this from a new group, i was badly treated as were others. even as i wrote to the Chinmaya Mission I just got an email: "Forget about your past. Yes, one has to be careful in selecting a guru or teacher. Do not worry about any guru right now." And I came on here and read bad things about them.

Wrong speech does not mean that you can't talk out about wrong doing. That is an excuse they use so you won't talk about them. Somewhere I read something about that, but I can't find it, but if I do, then I will post it here. Wrong speech is keeping your mouth shut about abuse.


Try to remember that the Buddha did not teach secret teachings, but you may know this.

The moment I even think of joining another Buddhist group or even Hinduism I find that I am totally stupid for doing so. I learn that even the Hindu gurus teach secret tantric sex.

Quote
Wannabefree

From my experience not all Tibetan Buddhist agree with the abuses, however they are aware of them and are held to secrecy and held from warning people by wrong speech.

There are good and reputable people in society that hold their silence because of they Tibetan Buddhist rules they are bound by.

I've probably posted this before, but it bears repeating: warning people of danger is very much Right Speech. The Buddha said that silence in the face of wrong-doing and harmful behavior is, itself, Wrong Speech. Speaking out about someone behaving harmfully is not only Right Speech, but even the Dalai Lama said that this is the only way to combat abuse. He has urged students to make their complaints public, and to "go to the newspapers, and, if necessary, to the police".

This illustrates how lamas and other dharma teachers deliberately misconstrue the Buddha's teachings in order to enforce silence in the dharma community and protect their reputations. "Good and reputable people" should be able to think independently, and if sincerely motivated by compassion, should realize that the "rules" as presented by their teachers are wrong. Why do the "rules" apply only to the students, and not to the teachers? The teachers can use the dharma community for their own aggrandizement (so much for "destroying the ego") and their own sexual gratification, but the students are to remain compliant, silent, respectful and proper. Do "good and reputable people" see nothing wrong with this picture? My own criterion, as a good and reputable person, for evaluating lamas and other dharma teachers is simple: do they practice what they preach? I've never met or seen one who does so.

Is the Dalai Lama so naive that he doesn't see the rampant misconduct in all four major sects, which, in at least one sect, reaches all the way to the top? Perhaps he only sees it as a matter of a few bad apples in the barrel, when in fact, nearly the whole barrel is rotten. Could such naivete be considered "Wrong View"? Could whitewashing a tradition that has caused so much pain and suffering (in the West, it's been 2-3 generations, now) itself be considered "Wrong Speech"? Does compassion and conscience not impel one to investigate the truth after hearing of numerous incidents of abuse, as the DL's office has over the years? If turning a blind eye to wrongdoing, and practicing the silence of Wrong Speech are an integral part of Buddhism, then I want none of it. Surely this is not what the Buddha intended.

Quote
Misstyk
I've probably posted this before, but it bears repeating: warning people of danger is very much Right Speech. The Buddha said that silence in the face of wrong-doing and harmful behavior is, itself, Wrong Speech.

Hello Misstyk,

I wholeheartedly agree with you that warning ppl of danger is Right Speech and I find it very interesting that you say the Buddha himself has said silence in the face of wrong-doing is Wrong Speech. This is indeed a most important point, but without sources and quotations I fear it won't convince anyone belonging to the brainwash-fraction. It would be great if you or somebody else could back this up with some sources and quotations. Not because I doubt it, but because that would be a very effective "weapon" against these brainwashy "Wrong Speech" manipulations.

Bye,

OD

Try this for starters, from the Patimokkha, Ñanamoli Thera, (translation). Although I am not in the business of convincing anybody, its worth a perusal.
I'm sure there are more:

"O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another should do so after investigating five conditions in himself and after establishing five other conditions in himself. What are the five conditions which he should investigate in himself?

[1] "Am I one who practices purity in bodily action, flawless and untainted...?

[2] "Am I one who practices purity in speech, flawless and untainted...?

[3] "Is the heart of goodwill, free from malice, established in me towards fellow-farers in the holy life...?

[4] "Am I or am I not one who has heard much, who bears in mind what he has heard, who stores up what he has heard? Those teachings which are good alike in their beginning, middle, and ending, proclaiming perfectly the spirit and the letter of the utterly purified holy life — have such teachings been much heard by me, borne in mind, practiced in speech, pondered in the heart and rightly penetrated by insight...?

[5] "Are the Patimokkhas [rules of conduct for monks and nuns] in full thoroughly learned by heart, well-analyzed with thorough knowledge of their meanings, clearly divided sutta by sutta and known in minute detail by me...?

"These five conditions must be investigated in himself.

"And what other five conditions must be established in himself?

[1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not?

[2] "Do I speak of facts, or not?

[3] "Do I speak gently or harshly?

[4] "Do I speak profitable words or not?

[5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?

"O bhikkhus, these five conditions are to be investigated in himself and the latter five established in himself by a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another."


Personally, I don't think you need to be a person of such perfection, since this is an ideal that none of us are ever going to reach, but sincerity, truthfulness and a lack of ulterior motive always helps. Who needs to be perfect himself before reporting abuse?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2011 07:14PM by Stoic.

Hi, Oma. I understand your request completely, and here is the source:

www.suanmokkh.org/archive/rtspch1.htm
This is a collection of the Buddha's teachings on right speech from different sources, rolled into one document. The quote below is from point #5, a discourse with disciple Potaliya: "Points of Praise and Blame Concerning Sammavaca"


To summarize: he says there are 4 kinds of people in the world; those who praise others, but don't blame when blame is due, those who don't praise others when praise is due, and also don't blame when blame is due, those who do praise others when praise is due and do blame others when blame is due, and those who don't praise others when praise is due, and do blame others when blame is due. Of all these 4 types of people, which is the most beautiful and refined, he asks his disciple. The disciple gives an incorrect answer, so the Buddha responds:

"Of all those ...kinds of people, whichever ...blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, this kind of person is the most beautiful and refined..."

I don't know if this source gives a suttric reference. But it just goes to show that it's important to study original sources, so as not to fall under these manipulations and misrepresentations.

Once when I was discussing on a Buddhist forum "lama abuse", and the difficulty some women have of even finding a teacher to study with, whether in a sangha or privately, who lets them study in peace, without harassment, someone responded with a quote from Lama Yeshe, a celebrated lama, in which he said that those who are not able to find a good teacher are those who committed errors in a past life, or were dishonest, etc. etc. (Moral of the story: Tsk, tsk, it's their bad karma). But in another discussion, someone said that the Lamrim itself says that a good, knowledgeable, and trustworthy teacher is a rare and precious gem. So apparently the revered Lama Yeshe didn't know his Lamrim very well.

I can only conclude that concepts of right speech and karma were deliberately misinterpreted in Tibet to keep the populace docile, thereby giving the lamas a free pass to behave any way they wanted without sanction or protest from the public. And this practice continues today, especially now that the lamas have Westerners to deal with, some of whom are accustomed to Free Speech and egalitarian application of the law, especially to authority figures and power elite.

Thank you very much to both of you, these quotations are really important. And yes, even though I personally am a bit more careful with presumptions about other people's intentions, I agree, it absolutely proves how necessary it is for us to go back to the sources and not rely on the Tibetan reception alone. Even if nobody would ever have had the slightest negative intention, hundreds of years of "telephone game" (or is it "Chinese whispers"?) alone have taken their toll.

The Dalai Lama has stepped down as a political figure amongst the exiled Tibetans, allowing the election of a PM, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, to represent the political concerns.
For me this goes some way towards resolving some of the confusion engendered when he was attempting to be both a religious and political leader, and therefore causing the distinction between the two to become fuzzy and nebulous.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

[www.thetibetpost.com]

For the Tibetans looking for dialogue with their Chinese overlords, it at least promises a break from the residual personal animosity the Chinese feel towards the DL as a result of the 1950's CIA involvement. There are currently working buddhist monasteries in Tibet that manage to co-exist with the Chinese rule, and their situation might improve as a result. The Chinese are unlikely to be leaving Tibet anytime soon.

I find this 'stepping down' a good move in the right direction, maybe the DL or one of his very impressive PR team had a sneaky peek at this thread and saw some sense here!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2011 02:14PM by Stoic.

I have a question about Wannabefree's experience, in which her lama/teacher, who has a degree in psychology, implemented on her a procedure to do what in the Tibetan tradition is referred to as "destroying the ego", without her permission, without her even knowing. Someone told me that this sort of thing formed the basis of some of the group "self-improvement" organizations' method, back in the days of EST, and similar organizations. This was described to me as a routine practice of breaking down someone's "ego" or core personality, and the organization or group leader "re-arranging" the participants' psyches to suit his or her preference. This sounds very similar to what is described in Victor and Victoria Trimondi's book: The Shadow of the Dalai Lama", in which the guru "destroys the ego" or breaks the will of the student, and imposes his own will in lieu of the disciple's will, turning the disciple into a thrall.

This strikes me as possibly illegal. I don't know how those self-help groups got away with it, but certainly anyone in the category of "clergy" could be held liable for breach of ethics, and in a case such as Wannabefree, damages. Would Wannabefree have a viable legal case against her guru?

As the Dalai Lama has said, the only way to combat abuses by gurus is to "take it to the newspapers, and if necessary, to the police". If enough court cases crop up, maybe "His Holiness" will realize that "lama abuse" is not a matter of a few isolated cases, a few teachers gone wrong, but of an entire tradition that is not only corrupt to the core, but that has abuse as its very foundation.

Corboy comment"

The neuroscientists, health care professionals and others who are persuaded to lend their names and credibility to "dialogues" with the Dalai Lama and other Vajaryana folk need to keep in mind that the Dalai Lama and these other tulkus, rinpoches, etc are the products of an ancient closed society.

The Dalai Lama is not a simple monk. He is a monarch in exile, and more than any monarch in exile, because he is considered the embodiment of the Buddha of compassion.

The culture of Tibet could not produce science. It was, in Karl Popper's sense, a closed society.

Its religion is based on non falsifiable assertions.

The work of science can only be done by constructing hypotheses which are falsifiable, and which can therefore be tested and then if refuted, be superseded by models with have better predictive power.

And unlike Vajrayana, which conceals its core teachings in secrecy and allows it only to intiates, science is based on open communication.

In mantra practice, which is a core part of vajrayana, the practitioner puts him or herself into alignment with a grid, a map, eg a mandala.

Modern science is based not on intiation or revelation but information tested and shared through open communication. Ones mentors are not considered embodied buddhas, but as human beings who happen to have expertise that is not magical but can be taught through ordinary expository means/

Modern science began in the early modern period precisely through the creation of journals, societies and agreements on use of language and terminology whose meaning could be understood across frontiers.

So scientists should take care that they are not being used as stage props in the media campaign orchestrated by the Dalai Lama.

It would be good for them to read the descriptions of what Younghusband and his army found when they entered Lhasa. The consition of prisoners horrified them -- in this blessed Buddhist kingdom.

[dialogueireland.wordpress.com]

Quote

DI Dialogue Ireland) is simply reacting to years of being fooled by all the Tibetan Buddhists who came on here , seemingly exposing Sogyal’s abuse, but when the ‘roots of his abuse’ were exposed, they all, without exception, ran for cover back to their Lamas. That’s it;.

And I believe he could hear what I was saying, because he wasn’t a Tibetan Lamaism; their ears are blocked, their eyes are blinded by the Lamas, purposefully over the years, because of their cult-control inside their sanghas. He was also open and not conditioned by New age bullshit , influenced by this TantricHinduVedicLamaism, because of decades of dealing with them, to actually hear what I posted, and I am very grateful for that. There is no anti-cult site in the west that has been able to hear this, because they have all been conditioned by Dalai Lama ‘Santa Claus” memes in western political infuences and the counseling psychology professions who needed another ‘trick in their bag of tricks’ called ‘mediation’, I bet they are recruiting and leading more people into TB these days, than anything else, thanks to there being purposely duped by the Tibetan Lamas. We now know that psychology really is a ‘soft science’ as is neuropsychology, two of the most duped professional groups that are having a profound influence on spreading this cult of Lamaism in the name of “mindfulness training”. And they don’t even know it . They are another group we might question why we would go to them for advice or help anymore these days since they could be so easily thought controlled themselves and are actually perptuating a sexually abusive cult and don’t know it.

This essay is well worth close attention.

For the entire essay plus many comments read here

[speculativenonbuddhism.com]

It may well account for why so many Buddhists fear anger and do not
get angry in emancipatory ways when they encounter boundary violations.

Have a look here. Without the "poisons" of discontent, anger, and a willingness to fight, the American and French revolutions would not have taken place. Thich Nhat Hanh would not have had these countries for hospitality.l

And...the pirates who preyed on the Vietnamese refugees were fought off by
gutsy members of the US Navy who had the afflictive emotions of anger, skillfully trained to operate fast vessals and sniper rifles--which persuaded the pirates to go somewhere. else.

This teaching quoted below will result in emotional gelding and turn us into obedient little meat puppets -- an outcome desired by smiling despots everywhere.

Quote

Buddhist Poison

What exactly is a Buddhist self? According to Thich Nhat Hanh a Buddhist possesses “equanimity and nondiscrimination” and is full of “peace and calm.” Likewise a Buddhist is “free from anger… craving, jealousy, and despair.” (Hanh 1) In so many words TNH is describing the qualities of what he thinks makes a good Buddhist. In a Foucauldian analysis we might say that such ‘dharma imperatives’ serve as a kind of technology of the self that dictates healthy and unhealthy forms of development. If “nondiscrimination” and an overriding sense of “peace and calm” are condoned affective and emotional states then there are also inadmissible emotions. TNH goes further in dictating these unacceptable or ‘non-Buddhist’ emotions:

"According to the Buddha’s teachings, the most basic condition for happiness is freedom. Here we do not mean political freedom, but freedom from the mental formations of anger, despair, jealousy and delusion. These mental formations are described by the Buddha as poisons. As long as these poisons are still in our heart, happiness cannot be possible." (Hanh 1)

For all intents and purposes, TNH’s version of the dharma makes one into a “good citizen.” His vision of “the Buddha’s teaching” produces socially non-reactive, non-discriminating subjects. A Buddhist, in this respect, does not seek political freedom but spiritual emancipation from “non-Buddhist” emotions such as anger and despair.

The Buddha, in the mind of TNH, dreamed, as Foucault would say, of “the utopia of the perfectly governed city.” (198) A city populated by citizens who spend their time moderating their emotions and behavior (self-regulating). Social freedom is an afterthought.

Of course this is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is also definitely an ideology that produces a particular type of Buddhist person with a particular set of Buddhist desires, habits, and behaviors (free of anger and jealousy while filled with peace and calm).

More of of the essay are quoted here

[forum.culteducation.com]