I concur.
Not only that, many Tibetan Buddhists are bhiksus in the classic sense. Even those who are not accept basic Buddhist teachings like the five precepts and so on.
3 Likes
I agree that it behooves us not to resort to mockery, but my point is that labelling should have some basic integrity built into it. Here’s an analogy. The restaurant we all know as KFC used to be called “Kentucky Fried Chicken”. But they had to stop using the word “Fried” whatsoever, by law, because the chicken was by no stretch of the imagination cooked with a method which was frying.
As to whether monks follow or break the Vinaya is an issue separate to this, @Akaliko. But a basic agreement, at least in theory, to follow Vinaya, is an important first step, if we wish to establish accountability at a doctrinal level. My hope is that this in turn helps to establish credibility.
2 Likes
Well, I’m not casting any doubt on such Bhiksus here, if they have good Vinaya.
I just want to confirm this but by saying that( emphasis mine) :
I agree that it behooves us not to resort to mockery, but my point is that labelling should have some basic integrity built into it.
Well, I’m not casting any doubt on such Bhiksus here, if they have good Vinaya.
It seems that there are already preconceived notions in regards to the integrity of their tradition. It may be an unconcious bias , but maybe its just me overthinking it 
I mean since you said that lineage is :
Hmm, so “lineage” here seems to mean “secular royal blood lineage, conflated with the mystique of a legitimate Buddhist monastic lineage, who would actually be bound by, and accountable to Vinaya”.
already shows some kind of ignorance , respectfully speaking on their tradition .
1 Like
Lay teachers are not accountable to Vinaya but can still be part of the Buddhist tradition. The Theravada has a variety of lay teaching and meditation traditions which are part of very much part of Buddhism but those teachers are not accountable to Vinaya.
Sexual misconduct is bad and people should be accountable regardless of ordination.
8 Likes
So what would you suggest to actually create increased accountability around sexual misconduct? You are good at articulating as to why my ideas aren’t acceptable. Any ideas yourselves?
The petition above is one idea. We’ll see how far it goes.
If I didn’t have any sense of humour, then I would be blamed for not having any sense of humour.
In regards to sexual misconduct Ven.@Subharo , in your tradition what steps have been undertaken to combat sexual misconduct? Or in your monastery what steps did you take? There have been some recommendations like talking directly about this issue in your local sangha , since this is where we can make the most impact. What recommendations can be given based on your experience?
In this article : https://www.lionsroar.com/an-expert-on-faith-based-abuse-talks-about-how-buddhists-can-address-sexual-misconduct/ for example to quote the article :
Absolutely. I would really like to see Buddhist communities with more explicit policies and procedures around what constitutes sexual misconduct.
There is a lot that needs unpacking around Buddhist philosophy and its relationship to sexual misconduct in a contemporary age. How do we understand responsibility? How do we understand blame? How do we understand guilt in relation to sexual misconduct?
We need guidance, because there are multiple examples of sexual misconduct throughout the West over the last forty years. Westerners are often not in a position to challenge incorrect teachings because they’re meeting Buddhism for the first time. They just don’t have the background knowledge to ask those questions.
Locally those discussion would be very fruitful with your local sangha members so as to prevent sexual misconduct.
I can go back later after researching more about this
When we take Vinaya classes in my tradition, one thing I really like is that the Vinaya teacher asks us questions about what we would do in hypothetical situations. They sort of pose hypothetical scenarios, and ask the monk to think fast about what they would do, which would be the Vinaya-compliant thing to do. It probes the student to make sure they understand how to apply their Vinaya knowledge in many edge cases. I felt that was a smart way to teach, as its engaging, and memorable.
Also note that Vinaya requires us to not drink even so much as a drop of alcohol, or that’s a confessional offence. It’s considerably easier to the do the right thing while not drunk. Any time where alcohol is allowed by Buddhist teachers, then the odds of sexual misconduct will sooner or later go up.
There was one case (this was several years ago) where I suspected that two monastics had kissed, and I could hear them well, but not see them, so I did report that to a very senior monk, even though Vinaya did not strictly require me to do that. So my conscience is clear that I didn’t just tolerate something of that nature, when I encountered it.
Well, I’ve gone to extensive lengths to point out what the correct questions are to ask, what with mentioning the Vinaya over and over again, in reference to specific rules, documents, etc. That knowledge is power. You’re Welcome, @RMC
1 Like
Yuval Harari had a great definition of the difference between a modern culture, and an ancient one (in his book “Sapiens”). Here’s the gist of it: “ancient” cultures are defined by having what Harari called “closed” knowledge. They think they’ve got it all figured out (based on some fundamentally perfect Ancient Holy Book), and they are not Open to new knowledge. It’s already all been said, they maintain, and there’s nothing further to possibly add. So don’t even try. “Modern” cultures, on the other hand, can admit that they don’t know everything already, and can Open up to hearing and discovering new knowledge.
Why is this relevant? When you are dealing with any ancient religion, your assertions and logical arguments will be much more powerful (when addressing the conservative adherents to said ancient religion) if you can draw upon the knowledge already contained within the allegedly fundamentally perfect Holy Books. That’s the knowledge they will be much more open to hearing about.
1 Like
Well, it’s even more fundamental than that: a community is defined by its founding document.
For example, the USA is the community which rests on the (American) Constitution. Christianity is the community that takes the Bible as fundamental. A KFC is defined as a restaurant that takes the KFC franchise contract as its guiding text.
Now, Christians can and will argue about how to interpret their shared textual lineage, and KFC can sue franchisees if they disagree on how to interpret their contract just as Americans can bring a case to the Supreme Court if they have standing to claim injury from someone else’s allegedly unconstitutional behavior. This kind of referring-back to a common text to resolve disputes is what it means for people to belong to the same tradition.
1 Like
What about pre-literate societies with oral traditions?
That’s a very American point of view. Your lot broke away from my lot and drew up a written constitution, whereas my lot had - and still has - no constitutional document. It’s also a very literate point of view, that doesn’t sit perfectly with the Buddhist tradition; nor does it sit with the Hindu and Jain traditions, and least of all with multiplicity of indigenous traditions around the world.
It’s a point of view that was taken up by the colonial movement. Even my lot without its own written constitution saw “the other”'s existence as depending on the existence or not of signed treaties. In New Zealand they signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori in 1840, but here in Australia the total disregard of Indigenous traditions has been justified the absence of anything written down.
Christianity was a happening thing before its documents were initially written down, let alone collected and agreed to.
While the existence of a founding document contributes to the definition of its community, Anthropologists might find additional factors that contribute to the current definition of a community.
I perceive a movement in this thread to argue from a standpoint of universal ethics to an attempt to to transfer the organisational and ethical organisation of one Buddhist tradition to another one, and then a second shift to an attempt to find some other universal principle that should govern all traditions. … Sadly, I think both shifts are doomed.
6 Likes
Come on. When we say “texts” and “Holy Books” we’re obviously referring to oral literature as well, which I’m pretty sure the Hindus and Jains and various indigenous religions etc have. Again: What are communities other than the stories they tell? (a point Yuval Harari readers should recognize).
Sure I was going a little “social contract theory” there with my examples, but my point was that story-telling-as-community-building isn’t only an “ancient” and “closed minded” activity, but is one that us “open-minded, modern” people still engage in.
I personally have no interest in declaring what is “Buddhism” and what isn’t. All I can do is decide which path I chose to follow, and respect that other people will make different decisions. This is Bhikkhu Analayo’s approach. I haven’t ever heard Bhante Sujato denounce other Buddhist traditions, either. In fact, if you watch Bhante’s teachings on YouTube, there are often Mahayana/Vajrayana monks/nuns/lay practitioners attending. Anyway, even if someone does go on a crusade to discredit “fake Buddhism,” or whatever you want to call it, they are bound to fail. Tibetans aren’t going to suddenly change their minds and throw away more than 1,000 years of history and culture. That’s true now more than ever, since their culture and religion has been under constant attack by the Chinese government for more than 60 years. So, the only thing someone trying to do that would accomplish is to engage in divisive speech and spread hate and anger. Now that is something I will label as not Buddhist.
Ajahn Brahmali said in one of his talks, I think it’s in one of the Noble Eightfold Path videos, that the “vinaya” in the Dhammavinaya compound isn’t referring to the Vinaya pitaka and the monastic rules found in it. In that context it means “practice.” So that compound is a general term referring to the aspects of teaching (Dhamma) and practice (vinaya). So when the Buddha spoke of his teachings in general, he wasn’t implying that keeping the patimokkha applied universally. If he did, that would mean Buddhism was only for monks and nuns, which it obviously isn’t.
In another thread Ven. Akaliko mentions this, but I forget which thread. He included a link to a non-sectarian Buddhist group that has drawn up an ethical contract for teachers to sign and follow. He said lay teachers he has worked with use this contract. Anyway, he can speak for himself.
We’re getting quite off topic, by the way. Sexual abuse happening in religious circles is not unique to Tibetan Buddhism. As Ven. Akaliko mentioned, it happens in Theravada, too. Sexual abuse committed by a lay teacher really isn’t any different than when committed by an ordained one, and both have happened (and will continue to happen) throughout the history of Buddhism.
5 Likes
This is one of the reasons why all religious groups and traditions should be subject to the laws of the countries in which they operate. Getting back to the issue that the OP mooted, in that case the offenders are subject to Canadian Law. One hopes that the media researching these matters and making their objective findings public will increase the probability of offenders being brought to justice during their lifetimes.
2 Likes
This thread! Way back.
I’ve worked closely with one of the members of the Alliance here in Australia to help get the word out about sexual abuse to monasteries and other organisations. The Oath had been endorsed by the Australian Sangha Association and the Buddhist Council of NSW among other organisations and several monasteries, Buddhist centres and individuals have signed it, including me and the organisations I work with.
Such a document might not have the exact wording that everyone wants to see but it’s good enough and teachers can always make their own version.
Having conversations about what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct needs to happen with all members of communities involved. Many of us are already having these conversations.
10 Likes
To be clear, I wasn’t saying that Tibetan Buddhism is illegitimate. I was responding to your assertion that it’s unfair to hold Tibetan Buddhists accountable to early Buddhist texts.
Tibetan Buddhists simply don’t agree with you on that point. The standard Tibetan position is that their tradition accepts (and goes beyond, but doesn’t contradict) the sravakayana. Right?
Your argument was actually subtly exclusionary, and hence my pointed question. I don’t see how you can be committed to the unity of the Buddhist traditions on one hand and also blithely discard their shared heritage with the other.
1 Like
Here Bhante is referring to an individual, not the whole of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as that person’s students who have shown similar monstrous behaviour. Trungpa and all his followers never said they were teaching or practicing anything other than Tibetan Buddhism. So Bhante isn’t condemning a whole Buddhist tradition.
You’d be hard pressed to find a Tibetan monk who had ever read even one of the sutras from the Sanskrit Tripitaka. They never even received the whole thing in Tibet, actually. They don’t study sutras, only commentaries, abhidharma, and tantra. Some of those texts do quote sutras, but that’s as close as they ever get to reading one. They don’t even read most of the Mahayana sutras.
If there were ever monks in Tibet who kept all the pratimoksha, it was a long time ago. If you pin a monk against the wall and press him on the point, of course he’s going to say that keeping all the vows is good. But you aren’t going to get much farther than that. Yes, the ideal monk keeps all the pratimoksha, bodhisattva, and tantric vows perfectly, but no one does that. Anyway, any lama worth his salt would condemn Trungpa. There have been many Trungpas in the history of Buddhism in Tibet, just like in other countries.
Of course if you view Tibetan Buddhism through the lens of the Theravada EBTs it’s going to seem strange. That’s especially true when you don’t actually know much about Tibetan Buddhism. However, that’s true of viewing any Buddhist tradition from the perspective of any other. That’s also true of viewing any religion from the perspective of any other. I remember when I visited a monastery in South Korea a Korean monk launched into a whole speech about how their Buddhism was the superior one because blah, blah, blah. This was after I had spent a few years practicing Tibetan Buddhism and was sick of hearing that kind of talk. So, I think his talk had the opposite of the desired effect.
I personally don’t need “my” Buddhism to be the highest, best, or most authentic, and I don’t think there’s even much point in discussing such things. So long as monsters like Trungpa are excluded from the equation, I think all Buddhists should be working together and supporting each other. Most of the other religions in the world would happily wipe Buddhism off map. If we don’t all band together and put aside our silly sectarian differences, they’ll eventually succeed.
4 Likes
Who are the Tibetan Buddhists that are referred here? Is it the Gelug , Kagyu , Nyingma , Jonang , Sakya or Tibetan Buddhism as a whole? Shambhala Buddhism was just established back in 2000. I am older than Shambhala Buddhism when it was introduced by Sakyong Mipham back in 2000. It is like arguing whether Theravada Buddhism follows the Vinaya because of organizations like the Dhammakaya Buddhism . Shambhala Buddhism does not represent Tibetan Buddhism like how the Dhammakaya Buddhism does not represent Theravada Buddhism. For me personally Sakyong Mipham is like Dhammajayo but more of a secular bent with the added baggage.
1 Like
This is a little off-topic, but I disagree with Harari’s open/closed society distinction. I’ve got several reasons for that and the main line goes as follows: the predominance of a form of sacred scripture as a social force/root of a world-view does not mean that a group of people (that we could call a civilization) “thinks” that they have everything figured out.
Surprisingly, it is possible to observe that in modern societies more often than in ancient ones. For instance, one sees a very famous scientist claiming that “science is omnipotent” (this was Peter Atkins). The widespread prejudice that modern societies are superior to their predecessors overall is another good example of people nowadays thinking they have figured everything out. Of course, I concede that modern societies are indeed superior in some of their aspects, but certainly not on all (and, personally, I don’t think they will ever be).
Further, Harari’s position itself an example of the kind of “closed” reasoning he purportedly distinguished. If we look carefully, we’ll notice that often ancient societies expressed a certain type of humbleness with respect to their knowledge. And intellectual hubris is something very often observed in modern societies.
With that said, I think the discussion was very informative and I learned a lot from it. Gave me a lot of food for thought.
2 Likes