Symposium: Buddhism and Sexual Abuse

[UpasakaMichael]

I don’t offer this as a rebuttal to any of the preceding comments. Just a few thoughts on addressing abuse in a sangha.

The Vinaya is the direct evidence, and it is severe. The four pārājika (“defeat”) offenses cause automatic, permanent, irreversible expulsion from the Sangha — a monk who commits any of them is “no longer a son of the Sakyan,” expelled the way a stone that is broken cannot be rejoined.

The Vinaya also contains provisions that map onto abuse: acts of censure, suspension, and formal charges against monks who harm or harass others, and specific protections in the bhikkhunī rules. The Buddha did not treat harm to vulnerable members as a purely private karmic matter to be met with metta alone. In modern society, people that abuse others are in need of metta, but it is aloso appropriate to remove them from the community, and in modern societies, jail them so that they are no longer able to abuse others.

The Buddha of the Pali Canon did not tolerate abuse in his communities. His institutional response to the gravest sexual and harmful conduct was permanent expulsion. Prosecuting and jailing an abuser to protect others is the compassionate act; mettā toward the offender as a being is a separate interior matter that never recommends inaction.

We have to be careful with what might be perceived as spiritual bypassing. Genuine karuṇā in a sangha context is first directed at the harmed and the potentially-harmed; protecting them is itself an act of compassion, not a departure from it.

[UpasakaMichael]

@Pasanna

ETA there are plenty of great bhikkhunis out there who teach excellent dhamma and dont ride on the coat tails of abusers to do so.

Ayya Pasanna: Sadhu!

[Viveka]

@UpasakaMichael

We have to be careful with what might be perceived as spiritual bypassing

Absolutely agree. But also we have to be careful not to go too far the other way and engender and spread ill-will. A very careful balance is required.

No arguement at all that such behaviour is not to be condoned, and that the established consequences need to be used in Law and in Vinaya. This was the baseline for my earlier post, just in case that aspect was not emphasised clearly enough.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@Viveka

engender and spread ill-will

Of course. But there is no ill-will on this thread!

My message about Pema Chödrön was said primarily with compassion towards her in mind. “How could you do that?!” is exactly what I’d tell a dear friend in person. “How could you do that?!” is exactly what the Buddha said to monks who made mistakes:

“Foolish man, it’s not suitable, it’s not proper, it’s not worthy of a monastic, it’s not allowable, it’s not to be done. How could you …?”

If people on this thread were calling for violence, that would indeed be going too far! But that’s not happening here at all.

To read mere criticism and immediately jump to “well, let’s also be compassionate” is to entirely misunderstand compassion. The compassionate response to boundaries being crossed is clarity about what is acceptable and what is not.

It may feel uncomfortable. It may even feel harsh. But ultimately it’s kinder than the alternative.

[stu]

One of the (considerable number of) problems that many of us have with Chögyam Trungpa is that while he did indeed use “the prestige of the tradition to enable [his] rank debauchery”, many of his teachings still hold resonance for a dwindling number of us. So that’s a conundrum.

So what are we to do? Burn the books? Never utter any of Trungpa’s quotes when discussing dhamma? Maybe, and that is certainly a possibility. I believe that’s called ‘cancel culture’ in modern parlance and I can see the attraction. The other extreme is to suggest that we can separate the teaching from the teacher, but that approach doesn’t fly in Buddhism.

In an attempt to square this conundrum, a third way is to evaluate Trungpas teachings while keeping in mind the nature of his considerably flawed personality. For me, this changes the nature of the teachings and expands my understanding of what was being taught, because now I have more of the context in which it was taught.

This approach comes from arguments concerning the separation of art from the artist.

This is a nice article on this approach.

[Dogen]

@stu

This approach comes from arguments concerning the separation of art from the artist.

I do not expect artists to be well adjusted, ethically upstanding examples of human conduct. Indeed, many artists (and many arts) are greatly problematic. That’s kind of the point of arts — to be a transgressive function to the society. Likewise with jesters, stand-up comedians and such sort of people. So it’s very hard to find transgressive, transformative arts from non-transgressive people.

When “masters”, spiritual leaders of Buddhism, exhibit problematic behaviours, it reflects on the whole of Buddhism. To add to Bhante @Khemarato.bhikkhu’s quote, the vinaya rules often say:.

“It is not, foolish man, for the benefit of un-believers, nor for the increase in the number of believers, but, foolish man, it is to the detriment of both unbelievers and believers, and it causes wavering in some.”

@stu

So what are we to do? Burn the books? Never utter any of Trungpa’s quotes when discussing dhamma? Maybe, and that is certainly a possibility. I believe that’s called ‘cancel culture’ in modern parlance and I can see the attraction.

In the specific case of Buddhadharma, I don’t think it’s a modern culture, it’s the simile of the raft.

Buddha advised us not to cling even to the virtues of the teaching, let alone unwholesome behaviour. He told us to abandon the raft he envisioned us building.

Going up to my forties now, I’ve been disappointed with many artists, teachers, public figures I once thought greatly of. It’s a good exercise to practice non-attachment, and the dangers of clinging.

MN 139 actually handles how to handle our speech regarding problematic (and virtuous) behaviour of others wisely:

And how is there neither flattering nor rebuking, and just teaching Dhamma? You don’t say: ‘All those who indulge in the happiness of the pleasure linked to sensuality—low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless—are beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and they are practicing the wrong way.’ Rather, by saying this you just teach Dhamma: ‘The indulgence is a principle beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the wrong way.’

You don’t say: ‘All those who have broken off indulging in the happiness of the pleasure linked to sensuality are free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and they are practicing the right way.’ Rather, by saying this you just teach Dhamma: ‘Breaking off the indulgence is a principle free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the right way.’

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@stu

So that’s a conundrum.

It’s only a conundrum if you’re trying to essentialize, “These are the good people and everything they do is good and these are the bad people and everything they do is bad.” Obviously that project is doomed to fail!

Just be grateful for whatever good you got from someone and be clear about the harm they did. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.

@stu

evaluate Trungpas teachings

Exactly!

Ideally we’re doing that all the time. Even with teachings that come from “good” people. Remember the sutta where Venerable Shariputra said he didn’t accept one of the Buddha’s teachings… because he had not yet had a chance to reflect on it. Or the sutta where we should be constantly reflecting on the Dhamma we’ve learned, reevaluating it. That’s our duty regardless of the Dhamma’s source

[stu]

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

Ideally we’re doing that all the time. Even with teachings that come from “good” people.

I agree. I listened to the podcast that you linked to and I did not see the same thing as you (“she kept name-dropping him like he was some great guru!”). What I saw was Pema Chödrön using some of the pithy teachings that were given to her by Trungpa which she then expanded and commented on.

It seemed entirely reasonable behaviour, from PC so I was bemused that you were stunned or thought it inappropriate. It felt like you were suggesting that CT was “bad people and everything they do is bad”, so PC should not use his teachings in her teachings.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

She could have just said “a teacher told me” or “I see it this way.” The way she cited the teachings as coming from him made it clear that she felt his “authority” added weight to it. Which… gross. And I was disappointed that she recommended his book without any caveat about its “context” (as you called it) especially when she could have recommended any book at all (including something from the Tibetan Canon, for example). To me this shows that she doesn’t have a sense of shame or remorse over his actions.

[stu]

@Dogen

Going up to my forties now, I’ve been disappointed with many artists, teachers, public figures I once thought greatly of. It’s a good exercise to practice non-attachment, and the dangers of clinging.

I’m in my 60s and ditto for dhamma teachers

@Dogen

When “masters”, spiritual leaders of Buddhism, exhibit problematic behaviours, it reflects on the whole of Buddhism.

Maybe. But that’s not my experience. Buddhism is a fairly modern category that was invented by Christians. I’m not sure how a problematic behaviour by a Nyingma reflects on a Theravada teacher for example? But maybe it does. I suppose we could say that the paedophilia of Catholic priests reflects on all religious people from a secular stand point.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@stu

we could say that the paedophilia of Catholic priests reflects on all religious people from a secular stand point.

Haha! Ain’t that the truth. That’s actually something multiple family members in America brought up when I told them I was ordaining as a Buddhist monk. They said that celibacy is unrealistic, especially these days.

I replied that celibacy is indeed hard when you don’t have or use the Buddhist monastic code. The Suttas and Vinaya are full of techniques and advice for religious seekers and leaders on this front. It’s a shame that in the West so few (even Buddhist) spiritual teachers avail themselves of these resources!

[stu]

Ah right Bhante. I see where you are coming from. Thank you for the explanation.

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

The way she cited the teachings as coming from him made it clear that she felt his “authority” added weight to it.

I didn’t see it that way. It didn’t feel like she was using his name to add weight to the teaching at all.

I think it was important that where PC got the teachings from was stated, and she did mention the commentaries that she has written to a couple of his books, (actually, I’ll be reading those in the near future so thank you for that). Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m reading a book recommendation I do try to get a handle on the author, and the controversies in this case are all well documented on Wikipedia for example.

[BethL]

To be clear, my first post in this thread took issue with the what I felt had devolved into name-calling. It began with someone veering from the litigation of abusing monastics – the OP topic – to generalizations. When that door opened, it really, truly landed with me as flippant piling-on for particular public figures and organizations.

It appeared it was being conducted by a non-diverse group of people. (I didn’t consider Ven. Pasanna’s straightforward, tone-free posts as part of the dynamic I was noticing. I stay silent on their assessment of Pema Chödrön as riding on the coat tails of someone else – an abuser – to achieve whatever status she has at this point in her life.)

Whether or not the non-diverse group largely consisted of the Sangha was not pertinent to me as the thread evolved. Because it wasn’t diverse, it landed as mansplaining and dominating a conversation with a particular tone.

On that word “tone”: It was not, for me, about what was being said but how it was being said. If a more diverse group had taken part, the tone likely would have self-modulated.

The back-and-forth seemed to be so rapid-fire (to use a violent analogy) that more diverse voices weren’t heard until some time had passed. Beginning with Dan, it’s easy to appreciate how different this thread has now evolved versus continuing to devolve. There are some valuable perspectives that have now been brought to bear.

Why would I, a mother of two among other roles, advocate for sexual predators and abusers? I did not say that in my posts.

To Viveka’s point – they didn’t quite say it this way but it’s how I read it, we walk a fine line when taking the latitude to denounce obvious offenders while casting aspersions on people downstream.

To Stu’s point, book-burning seems like we don’t (or won’t, or can’t) account for complexity. (Again, my words.)

I’ve been around plenty of religious figures (including monastics) who mis-use their status – perceived or real – to lure people into relationships of dependency. As long as the victim remains infantile, all is well. When the victim wants to leave, they are shunned and cut off. It’s plain ol’ narcissism. It can be as traumatizing as sexual abuse depending on the circumstances.

This wasn’t the purpose of the OP, as far as I can tell. But that’s where it is now.

[Dan]

@BethL

To Viveka’s point – they didn’t quite say it this way but it’s how I read it, we walk a fine line when taking the latitude to denounce obvious offenders while casting aspersions on people downstream.

Yes this is what I saw. EDIT: well not quite sure if “casting aspersions” is the exact right word. But ineffectual ? anyway good enough.

[Snowbird]

@BethL

It was not, for me, about what was being said but how it was being said.

Tone policing rarely works out well in discussions like this. To me your tone policing came off as tone deaf.

If you can’t deal with someone pointing out their concerns with a teacher who continues to actively support their own teacher who was a predator, then these discussions are going to be difficult for you. There is very little that can be done to make this “polite.”

PC is not some innocent “down stream” person. She continues to promote CT. She is in fact a very powerful figure. After all, she was the guest on a prominent NYT podcast. She could easily distance herself from CT but she chooses not to. This is a core issue in Buddhism and sexual abuse. Under the guise of “complexity” people protect predators.

There was no criticism of innocent “down stream” people.

I’m afraid that if the Buddha were alive today people would be tone policing him too.

And also, you don’t really know anything about the diversity of the voices in the conversation. You are making assumptions about people you know very little about. Please be careful.

[Sumana]

In the Vinaya, if you knew the person who committed the crime and decided not to report it to the Sangha, you were also guilty. So…in the case of Pema Chödrön, technically she committed an offense for “not acknowledging” the abuser.

@Dogen

Going up to my forties now, I’ve been disappointed with many artists, teachers, public figures I once thought greatly of. It’s a good exercise to practice non-attachment, and the dangers of clinging.

Yup! Neil Gaiman is another example.
I still think clinging to the good qualities, wisdom and dignity in people is a still a good kind of clinging…It’s part of the raft.

[Dan]

@Sumana

In the Vinaya, if you knew the person who committed the crime and decided not to report it to the Sangha, you were also guilty.

What does the Vinaya say for when you report the crime but the way people ask questions is not with natural justice but rather people ask about the credibility of the reporter?

[Sumana]

You should ask the monastic Sangha. My knowledge of Vinaya is the same as that of a toddler’s knowledge of the world.

[Dan]

Yes, I should. I’ve really wondered how aware people are about natural justice (often called proceedural fairness) or does it get dismissed (it could like “legalistic” etc) but it’s probably bit far from the thread or do they think that is not a thing, etc. Like I know the Buddha was (he would ask “how are you?” “is this true?” “what happened?” etc like police are trained, but I know that kind of thing people practicing in community it takes a level of maturity to see in my experience in lay stuff etc, I can see that going a bit haywire with a sort of “folksy” misunderstanding of yoniso manisikara as “inquiry into casuality” for instance if a survivor approached, they may want to understand “what is up with them” or “how did this occur” which would be the actively harmful way about it (rather than the inquiry into condition “how are you?” etc) Either way yeah that’s something I’ve been meaning to ask when time right to like I saw ven Mettaji giving good presentations at BSWA or like Bhante Sujato or Ajahn Brahmali one day, etc but anyway right now it was hot fingers on the keyboard, apologies for that, With metta.

[Snowbird]

Just in case folks reading here haven’t read all of the papers linked in the op, or they aren’t familiar with CT:

Sacred Spaces, Silent Suffering: Sexual Abuse in VajrayānaBuddhist Contexts

Dan, I am not saying and would not say that all victims must come forward. It’s honestly a wonder to me that anyone ever does, especially after reading this thread.

This is a nice quote from the Survivors’ Roundtable: Centering Survivor Voices

@Viveka

The symposium is looking at it from a wordly perspective, which is totally fine and makes things clear and focused, aligned with the Law of the Land.

Did you read the articles I did? Because this was not what I read. Edit To Add: I just finished The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Can the Legal System BringJustice to Survivors of Sexual Abuse in Spiritual Communities? and so far that’s the only article that even addresses the legal system, and as I read it, mostly discounts its value. Or at least, presents many limitations of the legal system.