@ sunshine,

I think that there is much to be said for restraining expression of one's own emotions, such as anger, in order to think more clearly.
However, I don't think that any such advice or instruction, from the Dalai Lama, root guru, or any other big name/big fame talking head should be accepted without reflecting on what place such an instruction has in one's own experience.
Context is also important, there are times when it entirely appropriate to show one's anger and times when it detracts from and damages a situation.
It is up to the individual, essentially, to make that decision--not some talking head on a high throne who is making general statements and is neither personally involved nor particularly bothered by the outcome.
As Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche so clearly stated in his article, all judgements are subjective.

Returning to the Dalai Lama, he was visited some time ago by a delegation of concerned western Buddhists asking his advice on the many guru/leader sexual scandals emerging amongst the new sanghas. His advice was to report these to the authorities and newspapers--which was fine advice as far as it went.

I was quite taken in, as it seemed a very upfront buddhist answer to a real problem. It wasn't until I had given it a lot more thought that I realised the Dalai Lama had very adroitly passed the buck--back onto the victims of those sexual predators--in much the same way that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been doing for so many years.

The Dalai Lama, although a leader and figurehead-a position he has worked to attain and happily accepted- did not consider it in his interests to sanction any of his improperly behaving clergy or to make it known to them that such behaviour was unseemly and reprehensible. He passed the buck and allowed the perpetrators to continue unchallenged, putting the burden of exposure onto the people already manipulated, deceived and abused.

It turns out that the worst sexual scandals were at the feet of the biggest revenue earners, an eye-opener for me and one which caused me to view the Dalai Lama with a far more jaundiced eye. My subjective judgement was that the revenue earning potential of these predators outweighed the pain of the victims they abused in the judgement of the Dalai Lama--hence his silky and smiley passing of the buck.

As Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche also points out in his article, some of these lamas have had decades of practice (being Buddhist he mentions previous lives too) at the political infighting required to climb and maintain a position on the greasy pole of power.
Adroitly passing the buck in order to get oneself out of a sticky position must be one of the first skills aquired by an ambitious aspirant in such circles.
Something that I have learned about passing the buck is that when it is passed to me I have the option to pass it right back, and frequently do.

Having said all that I still think, in my subjective way, that there is much to be admired in the Buddhist philosophy and many genuine and good intentioned human beings within the tradition who attempt to live by that philosophy. I just no longer expect to see them in the upper echelon of the power structure, or on advertising billboards.

Re; STOIC's last post...

'Returning to the Dalai Lama, he was visited some time ago by a delegation of concerned western Buddhists asking his advice on the many guru/leader sexual scandals emerging amongst the new sanghas. His advice was to report these to the authorities and newspapers--which was fine advice as far as it went.

I was quite taken in, as it seemed a very upfront buddhist answer to a real problem. It wasn't until I had given it a lot more thought that I realised the Dalai Lama had very adroitly passed the buck--back onto the victims of those sexual predators--in much the same way that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been doing for so many years.

The Dalai Lama, although a leader and figurehead-a position he has worked to attain and happily accepted- did not consider it in his interests to sanction any of his improperly behaving clergy or to make it known to them that such behaviour was unseemly and reprehensible. He passed the buck and allowed the perpetrators to continue unchallenged, putting the burden of exposure onto the people already manipulated, deceived and abused.'




Some people who see the Dalai Lama's Clergy what they can get away with, if they were predators of any kind sexual, physical or psychological why would they try to enter the Dalai Lama's Clergy/Sangha.

I think he would have a lot more credibility if within his Organization he had this policed abusers like this.


It is such subtle trap that you can't see it for new comers and others, that that is the whole point before any of these other abuses happen.

An animal being caught in a trap in a forest doesn't see it, if it did it wouldn't fall into it if it saw it first.

If a fish could see what the hook was for that is attached to the bait it wouldn't touch it.

It is the same for people, I know from personal experience, after meeting the Dalai Lama's Sangha/Clergy.

You feel so loved at first you drop all your defenses.

Working with a Monk from my experience, ( again I was only seeing him supposedly as a counselor ), is like accepting your friend who then becomes an Army interrogator and progressively breaks down until you have not resistance, all critical thinking is dismantled...

So really before all the Horrific Abuses are set up, it is at the very beginning IMO that sadistically and potentially Evil plans are being created in the future for you under a disguise of what westerners see as kindness, but is something different, if you really fall deeply under their mind control.

There is no disclosure of this, why...

Because you wouldn't fall into the trap then....

Some of them may even have a sadistic nature before they come into contact with Tibetan Buddhism in the first place and then oh goody, look what I can get away with now...


The whole point is they don't let you know it is a trap because then you wouldn't fall into it...

Aside from meditation which they use for hypnosis, my girlfriend had taken on Bodhisattva Vows because she was charmed by a High Lama during a teaching to take them on, she had no intention too when she went to the teachings.

They know how to cold read you and how to influence you by using subtle words that play to our emotions.

Once you have taken on Bodhisattva Vows you are pretty deep then and I would suggest unless you had a breakdown like I did you are there for good...

Their like mind farmers, gently pushing you in their direction...

Again if you saw the trap you wouldn't fall into it,

that's the whole point they have no disclosure of their goals in the beginning...

'Their like mind farmers, gently pushing you in their direction...'

Thats a good description. I don't think any of us see the traps until we've been caught a few times, hopefully not finding the 'being caught a few times' too damaging.
The only benefit of being caught a few times is that the experience makes us more wary for the future.

I was shown an article and book that may be of interest by non-traditional meditation teacher (ex-Theravada Buddhist monk) Jason Siff, His book and article "Unlearning meditation" (Tricycle fall 2009) it gives an experienced, very thoughtful, radical critique of buddhist meditation practices--the ways they're taught and their destructive, confusing effects -- and offers a meditation practice that's the opposite of what most teachers teach.

[www.tricycle.com]

His book is called 'Unlearning Meditation: What to Do When the Instructions Get in the Way'

The thing to keep in mind, again and yet again, is the DL has immense prestige and yes, folks, POWER.

Yet he faces less accountablity than the Bishop of Rome. For decades, the Vatican has faced an articulate and (important) institionalized form of scrutiny thanks to attention from journalists and the many alert and concerned clergy and lay persons who took to heart the social justice teachings of Vatican II and who also took seriously another lession from Vatican II-the principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions ought to be made at a level as close to the situation as possible, rather than being referred to distant Rome.

The press needs to ask how responsibly the DL and other high lamas are using their power, the vast trust placed in them, their celebrity

The press need to take seriously issues of clergy abuse in the various branches of Himalayan Buddhism, for right now Tibetan Buddhists are at the stage Catholics were in the pre-Vatican II years--Father knows best, dont question the Pope, anyone who does is evil and a heretic.

What we need, IMO is for a Buddhist form of the Principle of Subsidiarity to become part of the Himalayan Buddhist lineages--when issues of malfeasance happen at Dharma centers in the US, there should be ways to name, restrain and if necessary, eject misbehaving power figures, and figure this out at the local level without constantly having to hope that a distant Daddy in Sikkim, Bylakuppe, or Dharmasala will fix it.

The Principle of Subsidiarity emerged from Western, post feudal society. There is not as yet a chain of cause and effect within Tibetan culture (which was feudal until the Chinese came in imposed a totalitarian state). Neither Tibetan feudalism or Communism recognize the essential dignity of the human person, which is the premise for subsidiarity.

Quote

The principle of subsidiarity holds that a larger and greater body should not exercise functions which can be carried out efficiently by one smaller and lesser, but rather the former should support the latter and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the whole community.

This principle defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. It was introduced to the European Union in the the Treaty of Maastricht as a general principle applicable to all areas of non-exclusive competence.

"The principle of subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole. "Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle."

[democraciaparticipativa.net]

Quote

...not long ago I had lunch with a senior prelate from a different part of the country who said that the frustration in dealing with the Congregation of the Clergy before matters moved to the CDF was beyond frustrating. The desire to remove unworthy priests from ministry was stonewalled mainly by inaction. Good bishops were left in limbo wile waiting for Roman action. If there ever was a case for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity it is in dealing with the issue of clergy abuse. There ought to be a good way for local bishops to handle these issues with sufficient safeguards in place to protect innocent clergy from false accusations.

Comments on a culture of secrecy in the Catholic Church--We have to question a similar culture of secrecy in relation to clergy abuse in Tibetan Buddhism

Quote

I would say it is the “culture of secrecy,” which has a long history with the Church, sometimes for good valid reasons (persecutions of the Church which wanted to hide who was a Christian from authorities so as to prevent their execution), sometimes for ill ones (the scandal). It is a difficult situation, but I think the issue is that this culture helped shape the way many acted, and we see how what might have been good for a limited use, became a temptation to use for ill ends as well.

and

Quote

Our theology of priesthood teaches that priests are ontologically set apart from mere laity, uniquely conformed to Christ. Such a theology seems like it would be conducive to creating an in-crowd sensibility–a perfect set-up for a cover-up of misdeeds among the brethren, eh? And of course if a priest is acting out sexually himself (if Sipe’s correct, the odds of that are 50-50,) even if in an age-appropriate relationship with a female non-parishioner, he is hardly in a position to report the misdeeds of others without risking his own disgrace.

All quotes from

[www.commonwealmagazine.org]

A tulku or Rinpoche who is considered the reincarnation of an aspect of Buddha or of a famed enlightened master would also be one who is 'ontologically set apart from mere laity and this too would create an in-crowd sensibility-a perfect set-up for a cover-up of misdeeds.

Many continue in anguish and sincertity to practice as Catholics and write clear eyed analyses such as those cited above.

It is just as possible for persons to remain dedicated to the practice of Buddhadharma via the various Himalayan lineages and create a culture of accountability that is long over due and much needed.

Quote

Richard R. Gaillardetz, a professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo who has written several books on authority in the church, said that neither John Paul nor any church leader "consciously encouraged" clerical sex abuse.

But Gaillardetz said he would assign the pope some indirect responsibility for the hierarchy's attempts to hide the problem.

"He encouraged an ecclesiastical culture that emphasizes vertical accountability - priest to bishop, bishop to the pope - and very little horizontal accountability" of bishops to one another and to the laity, Gaillardetz said.

"In general that is going to be one of the most serious criticisms leveled against this papacy, that he turned away from the direction many people saw in Vatican II, which is the principle of subsidiarity or decentralized control," Gaillardetz added, referring to the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. "That is a disturbing pattern, a larger pattern of this pontificate."

David Gibson, author of "The Coming Catholic Church," a 2003 book about long-term change in the church, also attributes the coverup partly to John Paul's insistence on central control.

The bottom line is: Cardinal Law was the pope's favorite son in America, and Cardinal Law's sense of a corporate church that he ran, with everybody else on a need-to-know basis, was very much an attitude that came from Rome. Rome did not want scandals. Rome under this papacy was focused on exalting the iconic image of the priest," Gibson said.

Rightly or wrongly, Gibson contends, the sexual abuse scandal and John Paul will be inextricably linked.

"After so many years as pope, people have almost begun to forget what a heroic figure he was and how close he came to being martyred on St. Peter's Square," he said. "The scandal is not going to define his legacy, but it does mean that every obituary, every discussion of his legacy, will have to say, 'But ...' "

[www.snapnetwork.org]

Am posting this so that readers can make analogies to the culture of vertical accountablity that appears to exist in the Tibetan lineages. And the difficulty of speaking up when a leader embodies a charismatic ideal.

A culture of horizontal ability is needed, IMO, in Tibetan Buddhism. Like Catholics, the faithful send a lot of money that is used for projects abroad. That is a huge act of trust.
It should not be supporting a culture of in group and out group that carries with it so very many risk factors for abuse.

Good work, Corboy. I'd say that, first of all, the Dalai Lama seems to be oblivious to the widespread extent of the abuse problem. When Western dharma center leaders met with him in the 1990's to discuss the problem (this was, in part, in the wake of so many scandals and a lawsuit relating to Sogyal Rinpoche), the DL actually invited Sogyal to participate, to give him an opportunity to respond! He clearly was unaware that Sogyal was a fraud (Andrew Harvey wrote his bestseller book, "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying") and was abusing women on a massive scale. So the DL is quite removed from these unpleasant realities, really out of touch.

Secondly, after studying this problem a bit, I've come to the conclusion that the monastic system in Tibet was so all-powerful, that it became extremely corrupt, rotten to the core. And this dysfunction is continuing among monastics and non-monastic teachers in India, Nepal and the West, in TB. I think your suggestion is valuable, but I think it would require a complete overhaul of the power structure, or perhaps introduction of sweeping reforms, and educating up-and-coming monks and non-monastic students (future lamas) in the Tibetan colleges on Western principles of "fiduciary trust" between clergy and laity, teachers and students, on sexual harassment, ethics and the like. This, in combination with instituting subsidiarity. Those western dharma center leaders who met with the DL, by the way, returned to their centers and instituted strict norms of behavior between teachers and students, in an effort to introduce a local measure of accountability.

Dharma students also need to be informed as to what is appropriate behavior from their teacher, what demands are acceptable, and which are not. So many students are taken advantage of by being told that the lama's wish is the student's command, which, I'm told by advanced practitioners, scholars, and Tibetans, is not at all the way it's supposed to work.

It's a very sad situation (criminal, really), and a challenge of monumental nature to try to remedy.

Great post.

If anyone says its a violation of right speech to discuss this, I use the analogy of how road workers set up flares and orange cones on road ways to mark hazardous areas and ensure motorists dont drive into harms way.

The flares and orange high vis cones are right speech, intended to help the benefit of beings using that road.

To give warning of a hazard, whether it is a washed out road or clergy abuse in my lay opinion, constitutes right speech.

Right on, that's exactly how I deal with accusations of "wrong speech". We have a moral obligation to warn people of danger. Furthermore, "wrong speech" can be relative; what is "wrong speech" to some (entrenched power structures, for example) is very much "right speech" to victims of injustice and violence. Silence only allows the abuse to continue, and so would carry its own negative karma.

An argument that a Guru or Lama may argue of the agreement to work with a Guru/Lama was that they fully warned the individual before they entered a one on one relationship with them.

The student had already agreed to work with the Guru with full warning.

Or the Guru said check it out first to see if this is what the student really wanted.


There is the possibility as it happened to me that there was such an endorphin kick from all the new meditations newly learnt by the student then after being charmed by the Guru and Hypnotized by him through suggestions and meditations.


When you are in this situation the information available to an individual at centre's obviously contain nothing that you will find explaining clearly the dangers of following a Guru.


Or if they were they wouldn't tell you which corner to look in.


They could say that was full warning.


However they do not make it clear that your ego, which sounds a bad thing from their explanations, but which is basically your personality, YOU!! They will attempt to make it go bye bye!!!

All your creativity, your humour, even good behaviour which is harmless that they deem not in the direction of helping them or their centre's or all beings will be attempted to be wiped out and replaced with theirs.


In some cases it works from people I have seen copying their teachers at centre's I've visited.

The centre's I visited were directly linked to the Dalai Lama.

I agree to a point what you say about Karma on right and wrong speech about not reporting speech creating negative Karma.

However from my point of view and having to try and recover from a Monk's abuse directly linked to the Dalai Lama, if you are using the term of Karma from a Buddhist/Eastern point of view rather than a more loosely western saying of what goes around comes around; this is one of the very first traps that they use to hook you with.

To slowly but surely trick you through cold calling techniques, use of guilt and shame and coercive techniques, that you really believe in Karma, you can be on the slippery slope to being controlled by someone else.


To really have your emotions to the word Karma that you actually even fear it.

I have seen people running around really scared that they have done something wrong and running around trying to do good things until exhausted and then more easily controlled still.


Now I see the word has no real meaning from an eastern point to me, except for someone trying to capture and control your mind.

If we play by their rules and metaphors at the moment they will have they upper hand as they High Monks have so much control of those under them, their minds.


I guess most or all religions use methods to control people of going to hell, or millions of life times of going to hell realms, when from my point of view now there is no such thing.


It is just a control method.


If from their point of view, certainly yes it would be right speech to report abuse by Monks.


If you look at a lot of the concepts not many people outside those that have practiced Buddhism or studied it would understand what we are talking about.

In fact it would probably be very confusing.

When I remember being told by the monk to come to as many teachings and meditations as possible, I was extremely confused.

The language at teachings and centre's etc is very loaded.

It is said that Cults use loaded language to help control people.

I found my family had no Idea I was falling under such influence, because they did not know the influence on my mind through emotions these loaded words were having on me...

They just thought I was talking rubbish...


I agree with SAM HARRIS (a well known atheist), he said he has written to the Dalai Lama, ''TAKE THE RELIGION OUT OF BUDDHISM'.

Problem is he won't, he will loose control he has over his followers....

There is a new documentary out that seems to celebrate or at least gloss over the exploitative behavior of teachers like Chögyam Trungpa. Johanna Demetrakas, a former Trungpa student, is the director of “Crazy Wisdom: The Life and Times of Chögyam Trungpa, Rinpoche” and doesn't see a problem with the sexual exploitation of his students or his drug abuse:

Quote

And far from his “bad boy” reputation, his teachings didn’t “shake up the establishment”, they were in line with the Dalai Lama’s himself, trying to create peace through an “enlightened society.”

“His whole way of approaching teaching is different from the way the Dalai Lama teaches,” Demetrakas said. “But ultimately they were teaching the same thing and he had the utmost respect for the Dalai Lama.”

Trungpa founded the Naropa Institute, which later became Naropa University, the first accredited Buddhist university in North America. He also founded what he called a military order to dismantle aggression(Motto: “Victory over war”), believing that military values don’t have to be used for violence.

“You can use all that energy that the military has, all that discipline, that camaraderie, that focus, and that courage and turn around and use that very same energy for peaceful purposes,” Demetrakas said.

Demetrakas said that’s part of Trungpa’s “crazy wisdom”.

“If you’re wide awake and do what needs to be done, that’s crazy wisdom,” Demetrakas said.

[www.thedailysound.com]