Returning to Our Core Values - A Response to the Online Critique of “The First Free Women”

Maybe echo chambers can be good. Maybe we need to collectively develop positive echo chambers. Just a thought.

3 Likes

and had been miscategorized with the Library of Congress (LOC) as a translation, putting it in the same category as the suttas. The publishers heard these concerns and retracted the book, which will be re-issued as “original poetry” on June 22, 2021. You can find Shambhala Publications’ public statement HERE.

This particular sentence stood out only because, from my understanding, the miscategorisation was based on the information given by the publisher and not the LOC’s fault.

I love these poems and feel that they can be a powerful support for the Path, and I regret that the ambiguity of their nature and of my own presentation has caused rifts in the Sangha.

It’s a little bit difficult to share Venerable’s opinion on this. From what I understand, references to things like enlightenment have been removed in many instances from the poems, which is a bit weird for poetry by enlightened nuns.

that it was alarming and distressing for some to have it categorized as a translation and am happy that changes are being made to rectify that

Again, I don’t think it’s just the categorization, I think it’s Weingast’s method itself which people find offensive, not to mention the misleading nature of the language in the marketing, the cover, the blurbs. It’s many things coming together.

At the core, I believe that we all share a deep love of the Buddha’s teaching, the Path of practice and the potential for Liberation. This will be embodied by each of us in different ways.

Absolutely, which is why it’s very important that there can be no mistaking what are the teachings and what aren’t.

While mistakes were made in the presentation of this book, the poems in TFFW were never meant to be taken as literal translations. The author addresses the nature of the poems in his “Brief Note” at the front of the book

I have to agree with Bhante Akaliko that most people don’t read forewords or author’s notes before buying a book.

The Buddha and his disciples give us a wise and compassionate method of how to respond if one is concerned that a member of the community is doing harm or is expounding a wrong view. This begins with seeking out the person to have a conversation with them. Then, in regard to what has been seen, heard or suspected of that person, one checks it out and asks the person directly “Is it true?”. This gives an opportunity for dialogue and the potential for that person to clarify, if it is not true, or to see and acknowledge their fault and to realign with the Path. Sometimes of course, a person holds fast to their wrong view, this invites a deeper attempt to guide them in the right direction, out of compassion. Here are a few references to this practice, (SN II, 16. 6, SN III,22.85, MN 38) and many more can be found throughout the suttas. Unfortunately, these steps were not taken before these public accusations were made.

Perhaps, but I feel like this is a bit besides the point, to be honest, especially if the book is already out there in the world, being sold in bookstores and taught in classes.

Further accusations were made by Bhante Sujato in his YouTube video “When is a Sutta not a Sutta”. Bhante Sujato begins by expressing his love of the suttas. He has spent much of his life translating the suttas to make them freely available online through SuttaCentral. This is a remarkable and generous gift that benefits many people, including our monastic community here. I believe that we could all find common ground in our love of the Buddha’s teaching. Bhante Sujato goes on to express his concern about TFFW being misleading because of the subtitle and categorization, a valid concern that is being remedied. Unfortunately, in his video, Bhante Sujato went beyond expressing this concern and made a case for “gratuitous racial erasure” based on Weingast’s translation of the name of bhikkhuni Bhadda Kapilani as “Red Hair”, stating that this was “purely from Weingast’s imagination”. The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary says this: “Kapila (adj.) [Sk. kapila, cp. kapi] brown, tawny, reddish, of hair & beard.”.

I don’t think it’s really about the red hair reference. I think it’s more due to the fact he’s a white guy taking on the voices of arahant Bhikkhunis from Ancient India. It’s just not a great look.

My point is not to try to prove whether Bhadda Kapilani had red hair or not, that would be impossible, but that we need to make room for different interpretations. Asserting that our way of seeing things is the right way and the only way, ends up increasing division. Instead, can we open up and make room for difference? Can we put our own views to one side for a while in order to listen and hear something new? I admit that it is not always easy to do, but when we open to a greater diversity of experience and understanding, we invite the possibility of discovering more than we already know, and can move towards greater inclusion instead of greater othering.

As a general principle, of course. But then things get slippery when you start changing things. At what point does it go from being a different interpretation to not Dhamma?

Accusations of sexism were also made in that video, based on the assertion that Weingast was “pretending to be a woman”. In his “Brief Note” at the beginning of the book, Weingast writes: “Not surprisingly, the question that has come up most often is about my being a man working with the verses of the first Buddhist nuns.”. This is a link to his bio on Shambhala Publications. Do you see a man pretending to be a woman? I know Matty Weingast and “sexist” is not a term that fits. About a week before the video was made, Weingast reached out to Bhante Sujato asking to have a one-to-one conversation with him about the concerns, but the invitation was declined.

I think the point was that if a man takes poetry written by women and then rewrites and changes it, putting his voice in there instead, that action is sexist.

The “Guidelines” for SuttaCentral’s Discuss & Discover, where both the essay and video were posted, states: “This is a friendly place for Dhamma discussion. Participating in this forum should be taken as an opportunity to practice Right Speech.” This sounds safe and inviting, and yet, the communications around TFFW on SuttaCentral have been far from friendly. The aggressive style of communication has created an echo-chamber where those who agree with the dominant voices speak up, while those who do not agree, keep quiet or speak among themselves. I get to hear from the people who are afraid to speak their views on SuttaCentral out of fear of receiving the same treatment that Matty Weingast received. I also hear from people who put aside their intuitive understanding because a man confidently told them what was true and what was not true. This is not a healthy situation. How did core Buddhist values get lost on this discussion forum?

It’s difficult to have difficult conversations but we should keep having them, particularly when it’s about integrity of the teachings.

Preserving the scriptures is precious and essential. We are now in a time when the suttas are more widely available to ordinary folk than they have ever been before. A blessing in these challenging times. It is also essential that we embody those teachings as best as we can and that we make room for different forms of expression. Compassion and wisdom are at the heart of the Buddha’s teaching. Let those qualities be our guiding lights.

Yes, of course, which is why we are talking about this. There should be no doubt at all what is the true teaching and what isn’t.

5 Likes

That is an excellent point, Bhante. :pray: I have spent eight months studying the Sutta about opinions and views and when and how to express them. Maybe one day I will share my study. Yet what I have concluded from it is this: 1) if we think in the name of truth and for the benefit of others, an opinion is needed (even if critical), it is important to express it (of course, within the right speech framework). The issue is not the opinion or view per-se. As you said, Buddhism indeed is not about silence, in particular when there is a situation that creates confusion.
2) The Buddha was highly critical of two things: unnecessary, distracting from the practice, views, gossip and chatter, and in particular attachment to ideas and opinions even if there might be correct and valuable. It’s the grasping of the view that it’s a problem, not the view per-se.
View can is expressed, criticised, corrected and so on. That is all fine as long as it is done with the right intention and skills.
Yet grasping of one’s views or the view of others: that is the problem.
So, I have learned that I do not need to be silent if I think my silence might decrease opportunities or create suffering or reinforce clear wrong, but after expressing my view, I stop seeing it as “mine”. I stop identifying the view or opinion with that aggregate that felt it had to express it.
So, sometimes even in academia, I have been accused of not defending my view, but if one thinks carefully, we discover that “our” ideas have never been ours from the start.
Indeed they are complex objects formed by lots of elements that never originated by us solely. There is a language, learning process that we got from others and so on. Think about how many alive and not alive people have contributed to our faculty to express those ideas.
Hence the grasping of views is different from the expression of them and sometimes is very important to point where the mistakes indeed are (like the ethical issues of this publication and the misinformation that was presented).
Then I think we can leave the opinion to its own life and to whatever people wish to do with it because we are not what we think we are just responsible of what we believe and these two things are indeed different
:pray:

5 Likes

Reading this thread I feel sad.

It was my hope that the Discuss & Discover Forum would align with my value for kindness in communications and a steady commitment to harmony in the Saṅgha while we address issues of how to care for and deepen in the Dhamma.

I appreciate the result of the book, “The First Free Women,” getting reclassified with The Library of Congress. That part of the result, to me, feels aligned with truth and thus aligned with Dhamma.

I feel sadness for the hurts inflicted in the process and had hoped this thread would be a place to discuss the negative impacts and see what could be healed amongst the participants of the conflict as well as those who looked on with dismay at the state of “Buddhist” communications.

The dialog in this thread has rays of kindness and reflective care, such as:

and

and

I want to lift up those voices and bring their messages to the center of the conversation.

Specifically, in regards to the comments about social media culture, mentioned by a number of participants in this thread, I wonder if we can look at how Discuss & Discover can be different than the culture of the mainstream world.

Several of the “Ten Reflections for One who has Gone Forth” come to mind:

“I am no longer living according to worldly aims and values.”

“I strive to abandon my former habits.”

“Would my spiritual companions find fault with my conduct?”

It seems to me that in following these reflections again and again in every message we type, perhaps we can bring each other in to conversation when we see a problem or a wrong and it can be done in a manner that is kind and conducive to cooperation leading to finding solutions to the problems and wise redress for wrongs.

Communicating with the aim of Saṅgha harmony is not spiritual bypassing. It is hard and important work. It is not looking away and staying quiet when a wrong is seen. It is communicating with nonviolence as the foundation of the communications. Change can happen without harm. We can do better.

As for Ayya Sudhamma’s interview,

“I am one known for speaking up in times when a wise person would have been quiet. I was trying not to do that for once when I read that I just snapped. I have to do this. I cannot be quiet. I have to say this and just kind of sit there and go oh gosh what’s going to happen now?”
– transcript of Ayya Sudhamma’s interview.

it speaks to me of needing more deeply important work of care in Saṅgha culture and communications. Something is not well aligned when a Bhikkhunī is fearful to talk with other Bhikkhunīs about a perceived wrong. There are two kinds of fearful, the fear of doing wrong (the wholesome within hiri-ottappa), and the fear of retribution, which may point to something askew in the relationship. From what Ayya Sudhamma said in the interview it seemed she investigated this, understood the first kind and had courage to push through the second.

I ask the question of what is unaligned within our monastic culture that silence and then the “snapping,” that Ayya Sudhamma expressed, was the result. To me, that is something for offline Saṅgha investigation. I hope the work will be done and that Forums such as Discuss & Discover will benefit from the results.

Bhante Akaliko’s suggestion for a friendly chat may also help us build care and mutuality of understanding into our communications. I look forward to that happening at the right time.

May we continue to align with Metta in all our actions for the support and wellbeing of all.

With kind care,

Ayya Niyyānikā

17 Likes

I’m just a lay practitioner - neither a monk nor a scholar - but I greatly appreciate “Discuss & Discover” in general and this particular discussion.

I read Ayya Anandhabodhi’s letter and all of the comments through a couple of times. I’m especially grateful for Bhikkhu Analiko’s contributions, and the rather jaw-dropping transcript of the interview with Ayya Sudhamma he provided.

I have no doubt that Matty Weingast and the Bhikkunis who collaborated with him on the book had nothing but good intentions. That said, surely it’s worthwhile to ask a bit more about the motivations of both the author and his collaborators as well as the publisher.

Was there some fatal flaw with the Charles Hallisey translations? Clearly not (though I note that his book’s 37 ratings on Amazon pale in comparison to the 213 for the Weingast versions). Is there a dearth of contemporary secular feminist spiritual poetry written by white men channeling ancient women? Hard to say but I’d think that’s a rather specialized niche.

As for Shambhala Publications, the only Theravada or Early Buddhist related titles I can find on their website are Kate Crosby’s “Esoteric Theravada,” Joseph Goldstein’s “The Experience of Insight,” and Sayadaw U Tejaniya’s “Relax & Be Aware.” Surely from a mercantile perspective the motivation to publish “The First Free Women” had more to do with wanting a timely and accessible “woke feminist” book with mass appeal in their lineup than some sort of deep-seated interest in the suttas.

I recently did a lovely online retreat on the four remembrances taught by three of the Aloka Vihara Bhikkhunis (including Ven. Anandabodhi), during which poems from the Weingast book were read. I winced.

Leaving aside what seems to me to be the obvious fact that this book would never have been published had it not been represented as being a translation, there remains the perhaps equally disturbing fact that enthusiasm for these poems, despite many of them conveying teachings that are the exact opposite of what their authors intended, seems not to have diminished at all in the case of several of the nuns who collaborated with Weingast and glowingly endorsed his book, as well as the publisher, which is choosing to republish the book rather than delete the title and destroy existing copies (which it seems to me would have been the appropriate choice).

I fear that a key “teachable moment” has been lost here: that the great translators (most of them monastics) who have carefully held and transmitted the Dhamma for 2600 years, and without whom we’d have nothing to practice, deserve our utmost gratitude and respect, key to which is making a clear distinction between translation and personal interpretation.

Having just finished reading Ven. Anālayo’s excellent “Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions” I was struck by the parallels between this passage in his critique of Stephan Batchelor’s willful remaking of the Buddha in his own image and Weingast’s defense of his own process in “channeling” the early nuns:

"A disinclination to meet basic scholarly standards is also evident from how Stephen Batchelor defends his translations, which at times no longer reflect the original. Batchelor affirms that “my priorities are not the same as those of a scholar,” followed by reasoning that

“if ones primary relation to the text is that of a detached philologist, then one’s concern will be to judge the literal accuracy of the translation; but if is that of a practitioner engaged in an existential dialogue with Gotama, then one will seek a reading that helps one flourish as a person…A dialogical relation with tradition, therefore, transforms not only the reader but also the texts that are being read. I also consider myself an artist. From an aesthetic perspective, I try to hear how these scriptures sing…Over time, those passages that resonate for me in the same key and pitch have coalesced into the body of primary sources on which I build my understanding of what Gotama teaches.”

The correctness of the translation relied on for actual practice is crucial. This is not something of concern only to detached philologists. It is of course open to anyone to develop an existential dialogue with the texts for personal edification. But to use that as an excuse for publishing inaccurate translations is irresponsible and contrary to the basics of scholarly procedure.

In sum, due to intentionally making bias the main methodology for reading texts, ignoring published criticism of obvious misinterpretations, and advocating that correct translation does not matter, it seems that Stephen Batchelor should be taken at his word: he should not be considered a scholar. His writings could then perhaps be seen as a remarkable illustration of Western superiority conceit." (“Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions,” p. 136=137).

Matty:

"My approach was to read a poem many, many times, to find the essential teaching each enlightened nun was trying to communicate. Then reconstruct the poem around that primary image or the instruction. In many ways it became something other than a translation, more in the line of what Coleman Barks did for Rumi. Some poems remained close to the original, some spun off.

*I had no training in this, and I wasn’t telling people what I was doing because the whole thing was so weird. But something allowed me to say: let’s see where this goes. I was in over my head, not properly trained to do this, but that allowed it to turn into whatever it wanted. I didn’t know what I was doing. I was certain of that. And I really think that’s the best, whether in our practice, our life, or in the creative process. It’s so clear that that place of not knowing is where we want to be."

Source: Creative Dharma Podcast

“A place of not knowing” may be where Weingast wants to be, but where I want to be is in a place of treasuring the painstaking work of the likes of Bhikkhus Bodhi, Sujato and Thanissaro and so many others, and making a clear distinction between the early texts and later interpretations of them.

19 Likes

I have just opened an account here in order to post on this thread. As part of the signing up process I was required to read the “Guidelines” and then answer a question as to what were the most salient points from what I read. My answer quoted the point that “we might not always be wise but we can always be kind.” In that vein, this is my contribution to this thread.

When there is conflict and opposing ideas and views it is helpful to separate out intentions from impact. The recipient of an action can speak to the impact of the action, which is essential for the doer of the action to listen to. After that has been unpacked and addressed is when, if necessary, the doer of the action can speak about their intentions, which may be very different from the impact.

Thankfully, the outcry of the misleading, confusing impact of TFFW’s original publication has been heard and ameliorated. The rectified, and now accurate, Library of Congress categorizing and the new subtitle of Shambala’s reissue of TFFW are important outcomes from issues initially raised by Ayya Sudhamma.

It is easy, and even typical, for the lines between intention and impact to blur. Teasing out intention versus impact is a skilful means to arrive at understanding and resolution. Some voices that spoke to the negative, disconcerting impact of the original publication of TFFW went beyond describing the impact on them and presumed to speak about Matty Weingast’s intentions. We don’t really know another’s intentions. What we know is the impact of their actions. When we blur the line between impact and intention we inadvertently say things that we don’t know for sure and that can cause hurt.

I have found this framework of teasing out impact versus intention invaluable for coming to understanding.

19 Likes

Welcome to D&D @AhimsaBhikkhuni :pray:t4:

4 Likes

If you are going to do NVC, it’s probably helpful if you are more specific than just “reading this thread” since the thread is very long and it’s not clear what you are reading that makes you sad. So…

When I read your comment “Reading this thread I feel sad.” I feel confused and unsure because I am needing accountability and clear communication. Would you be willing to say specifically what you are reading that makes you sad?

5 Likes

Welcome Ayya! :smiley:

Yes! Good point. A lot has been said about right speech and guessing at various people’s motivations on both sides of this issue.


Disclosing Associations

Ayya @AhimsaBhikkhuni, In the interests of integrity, openness and clarity, it’s probably a good idea for people who are commenting here to disclose if they had a close association with the book. This might be useful to help readers navigate the thread and as you point out, to see the nuances between intention and impact more clearly. I understand you’re a resident of Aloka Vihara, and probably had some interactions with Matty during the creation of the book? He talks about working on the poems with all the residents in his various interviews. Whilst you didn’t mention it, I also remember that you were one of the several nuns from Aloka Vihara who provided a public endorsement of the book for Shambala’s marketing materials.

This is important to disclose because readers should be made aware when a commentator already has some ‘skin in the game’ . We should be allowed to know about any vested interests caused by a close association with the issue, as this no doubt affects what is said. I was really glad to see your co-resident at Aloka Vihara, Ayya Niyyanika, disclose this above, as I felt it was the right thing to do, to make that connection known and clear. It’s vital that when reading responses from our friends from Aloka Vihara, that people know the book was written at Aloka Vihara over a long period, with a huge amount of input from the co-founder and senior-most nun, Ayya Anandabodhi (she called herself the ‘editor in chief’ of the book and talked about her strong desire to get the poems out into the world) and we are told other residents were involved with the poems too, and we know that they enthusiastically promoted it, using it in teachings for over a year.

So it’s vital to acknowledge this close association when it comes to threads like this where readers might not be aware of the prior involvement of our interlocutors. After all, people so close to the creation of this work and involved in it’s promotion and use, cannot be said to be neutral or unbiased; especially when criticising others, so this should be made known. As you say, Ayya, you joined the forum especially to have a say on this issue, and without guessing at your intentions, not disclosing your connection to the book might reasonably affect the impact of your words on others. Your comments might be seen quite differently if that connection was disclosed to them at the time, right?

In many ways, this disclosing of facts is similar to the major concerns people had about the integrity of the book itself. That’s not at all to say that people associated with the book and it’s promotion shouldn’t have a voice or cant chime in on public forums discussing it , or defend their views on it, or correct mistakes etc—no, I’m not saying that at all! In fact I think it’s great that you are here, and I really look forward to your contributions on this and the many other lively discussions on the forum, but just to clarify; it seems you are not here because of the EBTs, or accidentally, or merely as a bystander but rather, have joined today for a particular purpose.



Picking scabs and Shifting Blame

Many of us thought this whole affair was over and done with. :sweat_smile: Apparently not!

One important thing to note in the development of this thread and conversation off the forum is the shifting of blame. Let’s not pretend that it was the Library of Congress’ fault that the book was incorrectly catalogued, or even pretend that the problems with the book can merely be reduced to an unfortunate ‘category error’. This trivialises the already well-articulated concerns of the many people on this forum and in many other places who criticised the book for misrepresenting our sacred texts, for mischaracterising the Dhamma, for impersonating Theris and many other concerns, including how this book was allowed to happen in the first place.

And now we are back discussing it all again… Let’s remember that it has now been raised—not by the people who criticised the book or anyone on this forum—but rather it has been intentionally brought up now by someone who was intimately involved in it’s creation, in a blog post on their monastery website. Although, ostensibly an apology, it feels like an attempt is being made to shift the blame and critique the response to the book for being less than perfect , rather than focus on any responsibility for the less than perfect presentation and promotion of the book itself. It seems that the quality and tone of the critical response is a big concern for the Aloka nuns who have commented here and that this has now become a major issue for them. Okay sure! The response and criticism of the book probably wasn’t perfect. But let’s be honest about where the fault lies and acknowledge that it was the creation and promotion of this book that led firstly to confusion and consternation, then to division and disharmony, and also to hurt and mistrust between the lay community and the sangha. Let’s be truthful and see that by bringing it up again now in the manner it was done has actually caused even more hurt and division, and re-opened old wounds that had only just begun to scab over. Once again we are all revisiting hurt and disharmony, feeling renewed anguish and reliving the trauma of this issue. Once more we are discussing this book here instead of the actual suttas, and now, even more participants have joined in afresh. How did this happen? Who is it that has caused this?? Who is responsible?



On What is Truly Sad

I understand you are sad about the negative impacts of the book and especially, as you say, especially sad for “the participants of the conflict”. I also understand that you have a real interest in good communication and an interest in repairing the bad state of “‘Buddhist’ communication” as exhibited here. It’s true that there is a very sad situation here, but let’s not forget why and how things happened, otherwise it’s like shifting the blame away from the real causes of this issue. There was poor communication. The poor communication that I am saddened by was the promotion of this book. You are saddened by the subsequent criticism of that promotion and how it happened. You are worried about the “participants of the conflict as well as those who looked on with dismay at the state of “Buddhist” communications.” My feeling is that at least the participants here knew what was going on. The people I feel sad for are those who were unwittingly duped by lies and fraudulent marketing into thinking this was a translation of a sacred text by women. I feel sad for those people who were lead astray by members of our sangha, who promoted and spoke of this book as a translation of the Therigatha and who taught it as Dhamma, I’m sad for those people who told me they lost faith after realising they were deceived by the sangha they trusted. I feel sad for Matty who should have been properly guided by his monastic mentors to know the difference between fantasy and translation of our shared sacred texts for which we are all responsible, and I feel sad for the tradition that these poems were falsely promoted as the Dhamma of the Theris over and over again by people who actually knew that this was not the case but did it anyway. If there is to be any criticism about “Buddhist” communication, surely this is where ire should be directed, not towards those who pointed the deception out?

This doesnt mean that people shouldnt be challenged for how the response to the scandal went down. But I beg those who were involved in creating it not to judge others toooo harshly and to keep their judgements proportional to the harm caused.


The Forum

There has been some criticism of the forum, whatever 'the forum" means, it probably means something different to everyone on it! It’s certainly not a monolithic or singular entity but instead it’s a very loosely aligned group of hundreds of individuals from all over the world, all with very different views and opinions. Yes. There was some fallout for people from FFW in this domain. As mentioned above, it seems that this has become the main issue for the nuns of Aloka Vihara and for other unnamed people. If only the book had not been written and promoted in a deceptive way, any subsequent fallout would have been avoided. Let’s not shoot the messenger here. Let’s also not police people’s tone, or say that the actual problem is with how some people handled their criticisms. Sure, things might have been done better - when facing the biggest Buddhist literary scandal of our time, hindsight would be a fine thing! People get emotional. They cared. They felt misled and betrayed. They felt small against a major publisher and a massive marketing machine. They wanted to be heard, for the truth to be out there. But whilst mistakes may have been made in communicating the unrest and injustice felt, and although passions may have been high, these on-the-go mis-steps don’t compare at all to the sustained untruths perpetrated by the creation and promotion of the book over a long period of time, done on the international stage to many communities and individuals who gave their trust to us as sangha and who believed the marketing and hype. This is but a small forum with very limited reach… All this surely needs to be held in perspective by those who were responsible for the book, and not glossed over lightly in favour for criticising others. Getting a bit huffy or excitable is not the best communication, sure. Having strident views isn’t great, either maybe… but misrepresenting the Dhamma? That is not at all a trivial thing and has far worse consequences.

Remember also that attempts were made with the publisher and author and that those attempts did not work out. The issue escalated only because of entrenched reluctance to do something about it by those who were responsible; this was avoidable. Sure, people may have gotten a bit ‘shouty’ but they were simply not being heard by the people in charge.

It’s been said that some people felt like they couldn’t speak up or have different views on the forum and that this shows there was a failure of Buddhist communication by D&D. By making this the new focus in the apology essay, there is a shifting of the issue and a deflection of blame toward those who raised the problems, rather than those who caused them. In re-positioning the forum as the real problem that needs to be dealt with to correct poor communication, we might easily forget that the whole FFW scandal was an absolute travesty of honesty and was a “Buddhist communication” disaster; causing deception, mistrust, confusion, consternation, division, disharmony and conflict . So, in the context of all this fallout, in the process of making an apology for misleading the public, this targeting of “the forum” for poor communication seems a bit much, really.

This forum is well moderated and people are cared for here. From time to time issues of poor communication occur, such as with the FFW, They were dealt with in several ways, but the important things is that it was dealt with. There were consequences and there was responsibility taken by all sides. There will be more disagreements in the future but hopefully there will be no more Buddhist literary scandals!

I understand for some people there are still personal barriers to vocal participation, but even if they feel shy to speak up, they always, always have the option of doing so at any time. If you are worried about a prevalence of views or an echo chamber but do nothing to prevent it; speak up! That doesn’t mean that our perspectives won’t be challenged or that there wont be disagreements - it’s a discussion forum, after all, there’s a dialogue, that’s the whole point, that people can participate and reply, as long as they dont break any of the forum rules. In that sense it’s quite different to a monastery blog, or a book, or newsletter or something like that, in that people have the right to reply and it happens in a public way. People can get involved, which obviously has both benefits and downsides and can be a testing ground for right speech! People who complain about being silenced in a post on the forum are very much being heard! I’d like to point out that people engage in this forum willingly, and in full awareness. The same cannot be said for those who were misled by this book. So, again, when facing criticism, that’s something that also needs to be held in balance. People weren’t arguing here for the sake of it, but because they were genuinely concerned for the preservation of the Dhamma and for the truth about the book to be known.



Praise and Blame, the Public Frame

Although it’s been a bit hard and a bit messy, it’s so incredibly important that this all happened in the public eye and was not hushed away or stifled or shut-down in any way. Why? The promotion of the book was public, the celebrity endorsements of the book were public, the rave reviews were public, the author talks and podcasts were public, the retreats and meditation sessions and Dhamma talks based on it were public. The deception was practised on the public and thus needed to be addressed publicly, in full view, in high profile and in strong criticism—in order to counter the glowing yet misleading narrative around the book. It was, in fact, not the Therigatha. It was not the words of women. It was not the Dhamma.

Whilst the praise was coming in thick and fast, everyone was raving about the book, no-one was at all bothered that this was all happening in the public domain. No-one thought it was a problem. No-one thought about the people being deceived or worried about their feelings. No-one thought about right speech and truthfulness of what was being peddled. No-one cared about the harm being done to our communities or the damage to the reputation of the Sangha and the Dhamma.

But, yet, once the criticism started appearing, suddenly all the rules changed; Despite lies being told and people misled, suddenly, everyone else’s speech is made the issue, not the lies we were told. And if people wanted to participate in discussing the problems, for some reason they must be held to an even higher standard of accountability than those who were responsible for this fraud? This is more important? I’m sorry, what just happened? It’s the old switcheroo. Despite the huge promotion and public place of the book, somehow criticism of it should only be done in hushed secrecy, away from the public where it really mattered most?? Suddenly instead of right speech being the issue we needed to address, it becomes a weapon to be used against those who speak out about lies and deception. Next, we are told we are “unBuddhist”, we are the ones causing shame and we are the ones doing harm, that we have trashedthe reputation of the Dhamma and Sangha! Now we are blamed, and told that we should have followed this thing or done this or that, or what about this quote of Dhamma and how dare you say something critical etc etc etc - none of which mattered a jot to the people responsible for the creating or promoting the book, nor mattered at all during the upward cycle of Praise! This is shifting the standards, deflecting valid blame away from those responsible and changing the playing field against those pointed out the deception. Public silence and secrecy would only send a message that it’s okay to visit a major deception misrepresenting the Buddha Dhamma to the public.

Even though there have been consequences to speaking out, I am glad to have done it. And actually, it needed to be done. That doesn’t mean I want to keep doing it though!! This is enough :laughing: I have spent long enough dealing with the problems brought into our world by the FFW. I admit I may have made a few errors here and there, such as calling Aloka Vihara “Aloka Hermitage” - sorry! Sure, I used strong language in my criticism of the author and publisher, I think it was proportional to the situation, but I could be wrong. If so, please forgive me and know that I don’t wish any of the creators of the book any harm at all. Genuinely, with sincerity, may they be happy!

I apologise and ask for forgiveness if I have upset anyone else or hurt anyone, or if my communication fell short of the high standards we expect from monastics.


Onwards and Upwards

One thing I am very grateful for was that this whole thing inspired me to suggest to my friend that we should create a series of talks by monastic women about the poems of the Theris in order to re-center their real verses and highlight authentic voices of Dhamma. This started out as small series of recorded chats about the verses of the Theris, but subsequently and unexpectedly became a whole festival! It was a lot of work but it was an amazing experience for me. I got to learn so much more about the Theris and to hear from so many learned monastic women who have so much knowledge and wisdom. I was so happy that I was able to positively contribute to the real Theri’s becoming more known in the public eye . It was great to connect with monastics from all over the world to explore these inspiring poems. They are perfect just as they are. The Therigatha Festival talks have received thousands of views on youtube and I’m so happy that people have found it beneficial.

For me, this festival was about returning to our core values.

The Therigatha Festival Youtube Channel

26 Likes

One thing I think needs to be addressed is that not all Buddhists share the same core values. For some Buddhists, the clear and unambiguous preservation of the original teachings as we have them is a core (and for some even primary) value. For other Buddhists, innovation and intuition regarding the texts is a core (and for some even primary) value.

With the events of TFFW, these two core values crashed up against each other.

While I think that there was a bit of echo chamber going on on this forum, I think it is essential to recognize that on the side of the book’s creators and supporters there was also a clear and perhaps even greater echo chamber. The praise of the book was effusive. Honestly I don’t think I could avoid being intoxicated by this level of embrace if the book had been mine. And when you listen to Weingast talk about the book, he states that at one point he was living and breathing the book.

And while I’m sure there may have been people who participate on this forum who didn’t feel that they could express support for the book here, there were also many people opposed to the book who could not speak because of the echo chamber of book supporters. From the 21st of August 2019 when the poems are featured in Buddhadhamma’s “women’s issue” until Ayya Suddhamma’s article on 16th of November 2020 there was almost nothing but overwhelming praise for the book. And except for the Bhikkhunis on this forum, the rest of us were completely unaware of the book. So, yes, echo chamber.

I can imagine it was very shocking for supporters of the book to hear any criticism of the book at all. Because for more than a year there had been none.

We should also remember that the poems were not so easily embraced by so many people because they were unique. They were embraced because they mold the words of the Theris into a very specific form of modernist Buddhism that people are hungry for. So it’s only natural that there will be a huge clash when contact is made with people who specifically don’t share that core value.

Supporters of the book are still maintaining the position that TFFW is some kind of translation. People opposed to the book maintain that calling it any kind of translation (or “not a specific kind of translation”) is a serious moral wrong.

I think this discussion is going to remain problematic as long as these different, dare I say opposing, core values are not seen as the real issue. Because I think those of us clearly on one side or the other are opposed to the values that the others hold. We have many shared values for sure. And I don’t think we oppose each other personally. But there are serious differences around what is acceptable to call a translation of a text that matters so deeply to all of us.

19 Likes

Shambhala is reissuing the book because the original marketing, title, and classification were misleading. However, it looks like the Aloka Vihara website is still promoting TFFW and attempting to connect it to the Therigatha:

Here are some links to The First Free Women, a contemporary rendering of the poems by the enlightened bhikkhunis at the Buddha’s time. Many of you have heard us read from this book during our teachings over the past 2 years.

Hopefully the website can be updated to reflect the truth of the matter.

Disagreeing with others at times is part of normal discourse, including in Buddhism. To not allow for a certain amount of disagreement creates a culture of conformity. Views that disagree with your own are not inherently “unkind”.

3 Likes

The Therigatha festival was an amazingly positive event, which grew, in part, out of discussions on this Forum about possible responses to the FFW book, particularly how it was being so obviously mistaken for the Therigatha by a large variety of monastic and lay teachers, female and male, who were posting readings of it.

A few weeks after I learned about the issue, I was at a retreat where one of the (lay woman) teachers enthusiastically read a couple of the poems, introducing them as ancient poems by the nuns. When I (quietly) pointed out that they were, in fact, 20th C poems, she was rather surprised. This was someone knowledgeable who I have studied suttas with, not a casual reader.

It would have been wonderful if, instead of having to petition the publisher, we could have immediately organised a super-duper Therigatha Festival, and associated publicity, that would have had such reach as to render the the misunderstandings around the FFW book irrelevant. As I indicated above, such responses were suggested at the time, and I am very pleased that they eventually came to fruition. However, a Festival, no matter how big, is not a substitute for the publisher correctly labelling and marketing the book.

10 Likes

Thanks for the clarity and honesty Venerable. Your positive and constructive work in the face of all this is an inspiration!

There was a problem. We stopped it as best we could, and then we moved on. The people who created the problem don’t get to complain that we stopped them the wrong way. Especially not when they are still doing it!

It’s unbelievable, really, just astonishing.

They are still acting as commercial agents promoting the work. The recommended link at “indiebound” starts out, “The First Free Women, Poems of the Early Buddhist Nuns”.

Anandabodhi’s blurb on that page still says,

as Rohini says in her poem, ‘then you will know the true welcome that is the very essence of the Path.’

I pointed this out directly to Ayya months ago:

But Rohini says no such thing . These are the words of Matty Weingast’s imagination, not Rohinī Therī’s awakened wisdom.

She never replied to me, and her false statements about the words of the ancient nuns are still not only published, but recommended on their website.

The blurbs are still full of this kind of thing.

  • the words of these liberated women
  • these women forged ahead with the winds of the Dharma at their backs
  • These are fresh, powerful, poetic translations that bring our ancient wise women to life
  • This inspiringly poetic translation of timeless wisdom
  • These renditions of the enlightenment songs of the early Buddhist nuns
  • rarely heard female voices
  • Though the voices are distinctly female
  • An amazing rebirth of the Therigatha
  • The voices of the first bhikkhunis
  • the voices of these awakened Buddhist women can be heard
  • strong, clear, fem­inine voices
  • I could feel these women all around me and was completely immersed in the courageous mystery of the ancients
  • I was walking the path of practice right beside these women. …These po­ems ring with authenticity and timelessness
  • a treasure trove of women’s voices
  • Weingast’s fresh rendering of these ancient words
  • These are women who sought out enlightenment long before it was safe to utter ‘women’ and ‘liberation’ in the same sentence, yet Weingast has given voice to them

On the Barnes and Noble site also linked and promoted on the Aloka website, we find:

The First Free Women: Poems of the Early Buddhist Nuns

  • Weingast (Awake at the Bedside) invites readers to find liberation in the affecting verse of the Therigatha, a collection of brief poems by Buddhist nuns

And on the official Shambhala page itself, we find the some the same, some revised blurbs:

  • the teachings of these liberated women are transmitted across centuries
  • Weingast was so inspired by these poems that he freely rendered them in English from the original Pali
  • Weingast’s fresh rendering of these ancient words
  • These are women who sought out enlightenment long before it was safe to utter ‘women’ and ‘liberation’ in the same sentence, yet Weingast has given voice to them
  • Though the voices are distinctly female
  • An amazing rebirth of the Therigatha
  • The voices of the first bhikkhunis in this contemporary rendering based on the Therigatha are vulnerable, tenacious, and ardent
  • These are fresh, powerful, poetic translations
  • the voices of these awakened Buddhist women can be heard with freshness and clarity
  • Hearing the awakened heart expressed in such distinctive strong, clear, feminine voices

It’s just unconscionable.

20 Likes

For the successful resolution of a rift, it is necessary to:

  1. Clearly specify the issue and establish the fault/problem. If not immediately accepted and acted upon, this escalates to criticism and admonishment. However, as Snowbird says, this requires a similar goal/understanding of all parties. Without this common understanding of acceptable/not acceptable it is impossible to do. The issue, as presented on this forum, was the publishing, promoting etc of a book of creative contemporary poetry, being misrepresented as a translation of the Therigatha.
  2. There needs to be an acknowledgement of fault. In my understanding this is about the impact - the actual result of the actions. This is about accepting responsibility for the impact caused. While intention is an important consideration for each individual involved, one cannot escape the outcome. If intention and outcome were at odds, then hopefully wisdom can grow, and similar mistakes not be repeated in the future. This doesn’t negate the need for an acknowledgement of fault and the acceptance of responsibility for the actions though.
  3. Only with acknowledgement of fault, comes forgiveness. But ‘who’ can we forgive, if there is no-one taking responsibility? We are all humans doing our best in this sea of defilements. To forgive the mistakes of those who see and acknowledge the shortcomings of their actions, and who have a desire to act with greater skill and wisdom in the future, is a pleasure and delight. However, for genuine forgiveness to occur, there must first be genuine acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse for the impact of the actions, irrespective of what the underlying intentions were.

From where I am looking, with no vested interest in the issue, it appears that there is no real acknowledgement of fault or acceptance of responsibility of harm done, beyond the absolute minimum to ‘quiet down’ the criticism.

Instead the issue has been deflected into a ‘blame game’, as Ven Akaliko and others have pointed out. This is indeed disingenuous, as it focuses attention on artifacts of the issue, rather than on the issue itself. As long as this continues I don’t see the possibility for a true and deep reconciliation. But of course our expectations of the responses and processes of each party (publisher, author, sangha) varies. We expect lower standards of ethical conduct from the Publisher, than we do of the Sangha.

It’s not that complicated. A serious mistake was made (intentional or not), with nothing less than the obscuration of the Dhamma being at issue. Each participant needs to acknowledge their role and responsibility, ensure that the mistake is properly corrected, and then, in the case of individuals, be forgiven. I sincerely hope that this is the sequence that ensues. :pray:

While our conduct may not be perfect, we can all aspire to perfecting our conduct.

May the Sangha preserve and spread the words of the Buddha for the benefit of all Beings, now and for those yet to be born.
:pray: :dharmawheel:

12 Likes

Thank you, Venerable Akaliko, for your articulate and valuable contribution! There is one matter, however, that I think needs a bit more nuance, namely the following:

I suspect you are not fully aware of the background to this. The founding nuns of Aloka Vihara have had a long and close relationship with Amaravati Monastery in the UK. Now the UK monasteries in the Ajahn Chah lineage have a very different attitude to Buddhist Canonical literature than you or I. In general they allow themselves much more licence and sometimes fall back on their tradition as a greater authority than the suttas themselves. Overall, they place much less emphasis on the EBTs than the monastics and lay people we tend to deal with.

It’s a bit like monastics using money. They often get criticised by those who don’t, yet we forget to take into account that they have been conditioned this way by their teachers and peers. It is not as if they choose to use money in a vacuum. Over time, once the problem is pointed out to them, they may change. If they don’t, well then they really do become responsible for their actions.

I think this may explain much of the attitude of Ven. Anandabodhi. The way she relates to Buddhist scriptures is just different. I hope this has been a wake-up call for her. Hopefully she will regard this matter differently from now on.

24 Likes

(For the folks at home who may not be aware, Ven Brahmali began his monastery life as a layman at Amaravati before moving to Bodhinyana to study under Ajahn Brahm.)

7 Likes

Warm greetings all,

All I can offer to this thread at this moment is just a brief checkin on how it is landing for me now.

I am heartened, and intend to cite why more clearly tomorrow.

I have only had opportunity to glance over the inputs on this thread today and wish to express my gratitude for nuggets that I cannot at this moment acknowledge directly given my end-of-day energies. I need to head to the yurt in the forest now and will resume reading the thread in the morning.

I promise to keep doing the work toward clear seeing and, to the best of my abilities, practicing in community in ways that are supportive for Saṅgha care.

I appreciate everyone’s dedication to the Path.

With kind care,
Niyyānikā Bhikkhunī

14 Likes

I only learned about this controversy with this very thread. Now that I’ve spent a little time digging into it, I find myself agreeing with Viveka below:

It really is that simple. You make a big mistake, you sincerely and fully own up to it, those you’ve wronged forgive you, and everybody moves on all the better for it. The bonds of trust are restored and strengthened. But if you don’t own up to it, those bonds of trust are tainted and nobody really moves on. People don’t forget these things.

The lion’s share of any blame here falls on the the author, Matty Weingast. It’s ultimately his work at the center of this fiasco and thus his apology that would have the most impact. He needs to personally and publicly apologize without delay. This would open the doors of reconciliation and lead to the best outcome.

At the very least, he needs to make a public statement. If he doesn’t want to apologize, then he needs to explain why he doesn’t think he’s at fault. It’s ridiculous that others are out there defending him while he stays silent. Think about what kind of message that sends.

IMO, of course.

7 Likes

Hello everyone,

My name is Ayya Dhammadipa, and I am a nun in residence at Aloka Vihara. I am writing to say something about my role in “The First Free Women” and where I stand on the issues that have been raised.

Matty stated that all of the nuns here at the time of his visit were involved in the book. My role was to give some suggestions for the title, but not for the subtitle, and to find a typo or two. Ultimately none of the titles I suggested was chosen. You may have noticed that I am the only nun that was here at that time that did not endorse the book.

I believe I have always said that the book should not be called a translation, and I’m not aware of any time that I used that language. If folks find places where I have, please alert me to them, so that I can remove them. I believe that if Matty’s poems are called translations of the Therigatha, then he becomes just another entitled male who is telling us “what the nuns really meant to say.”

However, following the teaching examples here, though my mistakes are my own, I began teaching from the poems saying "Venerable Bhikkhuni so and so said…"and then reading from Matty’s poem. I am grateful to Ayya Sudhamma and Bhante Sujato and Bhante Akaliko for pointing out the error in this. Without their comments, I likely would have gone on making that mistake for some time. This does not mean that I agree with all of the language that was used to describe Matty and people’s ideas about his motives.

Once I learned of my mistake, I began investigating in more detail, and I discussed my concerns with others here at the vihara. I’ve chosen to provide feedback directly to the members of my community, rather than use this forum. I have expressed the fact that I view this as a very serious matter, and that
I want to explore skillful responses and solutions going forward. I have also removed from the public sphere any teachings I gave in which I used language that suggests that Matty’s poems are the Theris poems. Again, if folks find instances where I have missed taking something down, please let me know.

Though we were in retreat, on March 11th I issued an apology on my blog here. (What?! You don’t all read my blog?) My website was recently updated, but I made a point to carry over that post. Reading it now, I think that it was a bit optimistic.

So I want to again state my firm belief that, as monastics, we have a responsibility to the traditions in which we are ordained. We carry a responsibility to the great teachers and teachings of the past. We have a responsibility to be a source of clarity about the texts and the teachings they contain, and not to conflate them with our own experience and teachings. That is a key aspect of the way in which we monastics carry the tradition forward, and it is not well understood by many people. We also have a responsibility to guide others to do the same. And we will inevitably make mistakes and have to make corrections.

There must also be room for folks to give contemporary interpretations of the teachings and to comment on the texts. This too is an important part of carrying forward the tradition, finding it in relatable language and examples. The problem comes when we conflate the two, when personal experience is put forward as the teachings of the elders.

I suppose that the most troubling part of this controversy is that it has revealed, for me and perhaps many other folks, the fact that there are seemingly fundamental differences in the understanding of the accountability and responsibility that accrues to monastics, of the expectations of care and comportment, of the responsibility to respond to concerns. The suttas are quite clear about the Buddha’s position on this, as he again and again received feedback from monastics and laity alike. He responded directly, in a timely fashion, and with clarity and compassion. I feel the absence of Ayya Anandabodhi and Matty Weingast from this discussion.

So the message I’d like to leave you with is this: There must be room for both direct, clear translations and creative expression and interpretation of Dhamma. I believe these kinds of expression can coexist, but they must be offered without being conflated. If there is a lack of clarity about this point, we risk blurring the voices of the great teachers of the past, at least their voices as we find them in the Nikayas today. When you offer admonitions, please do so with clarity and kindness, without adding to the harm. When you (and I) are offered admonitions, please listen to them and respond with care. Otherwise, we are all just increasing the dukkha in the world, and behaving in ways that are uninspiring.

43 Likes

@Konin dear Ayya, just a quick message to say many thanks for your invaluable and timely contribution. I really appreciate your honesty, even-mindedness and sincerity. I’m also impressed by your principled approach to the issue and grateful for your engagement here.

I hope that the experience you had with your community on this issue was not too onerous and that you continue to flourish in the holy life.

Thanks also for the link to your website and your art :heart_eyes:

14 Likes