Buddhism, Triratna

by tenpelMay 4, 20179:38 pm

A Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council

Preface by Buddhism Controversy Blog: Some weeks ago, the Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council sent the following letter to the Triratna Buddhist Community’s College of Public Preceptors. We would like to express our praise for these principled persons of the ASVC and to show our support for their understanding and requests for compassionate actions to address the serious dysfunctions and harms done to faith seekers and their families by the TBC and its founder.

We would also like to express our support for those who signed a similar letter created by TBC members from two large centres in the north of England, a letter which initially appeared on Facebook but which was later set to ‘private’ so that it could no longer be shared with a broader public.

That letter clearly pointed out the traps and dangers of the methodology being adopted at present by the current Triratna Buddhist Order (TBO) leadership, in dealing with said dysfunctions, harms and sexual abuse that have long taken place within their organisation, a methdology which it applies at the cost and continued suffering of those who have been harmed. In particular, it pointed out that the process was being conducted in what is to all intents and purposes, a private setting, while at the same time claiming repeatedly to be public and transparent.

It also pointed out that the needs of victims and survivors of abuse were being ignored insofar as the process was focusing on reconciliation. Why should anyone who has been abused by this group and its founder want reconciliation? Surely, those abused by Sangharakshita and his high ranking converts should be free to seek justice and recompense rather than reconciliation. As Pam Rubin points out in her excellent talk The Wrong Paradigm,

Conceiving of sexual violence and abuse as a relationship problem does not fit what’s actually going on … and, it’s very unfair to burden that victim as if they have to solve a relationship problem.

Considering the history of the TBC, it is obvious that it is only public pressure that has ever brought about any change or acknowledgement with respect to sexual abuse and the abuse of power. For this reason, it has been decided to place the ASVC letter in the public domain. We think it is also in the wider public interest to understand the good will of the authors of the ASVC and the Manchester and Liverpool Buddhist Centres letters, Clearly, there are TBC members who can see the adverse conditions being created by the TBC leadership for those seekers harmed and damaged by the TBC, with the said harm and damage being perpetuated by the continued poor, even detrimental leadership. They too recognize the manner in which it continues to suppress the truth of past issues, in a space beyond public scrutiny, which is not transparent and where no one is held accountable, this despite their claims to the contrary.

We sincerely hope to contribute to a fruitful and positive change within Triratna so that the leadership can begin to focus more on the needs of those who have been harmed, as well as becoming aware of their own responsibilities. We hope that they become fully aware of and acknowledge the culture within Triratna that enabled sexual abuse instead of continuing to whitewash and minimise what happened over the last several decades.

Healing will never be possible as long as the harm done is minimised and until those responsible acknowledge their responsibilities, and purge the TBC of existent distorted Buddhist teachings. Justice will never be done in a culture where indoctrination is not openly questioned and dishonesty, whitewashing, damage control, siding with Sangharakshita at the cost of those been harmed as well as denial, slander (of victims and critics) are perpetuated.

Preface edited on May 9, 2017

line-gothic

The Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council

Last week the Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council sent a letter to the College of Public Preceptors, Adhisthana kula, and our President about our experiences running a large and long-standing Triratna Center during the current period of controversy. We recognize that some of these concerns have been addressed recently by the Adhistana kula and the Preceptors College. In recognition of the value of hearing many voices in these challenging times, the Aryaloka Council is sharing this letter here. This letter was created after long and careful discussions by Aryaloka’s Council over several weeks.

The Spiritual Vitality Council at Aryaloka is charged with overseeing the spiritual vitality of our sangha, friends, and guests. As part of the Triratna Buddhist Community we do our best to guide, oversee, and support effective Dharma and meditation practice and instruction at our Center, as well as to foster Kalyana mitrata among all who participate. At this time, we wish to communicate several concerns to the Adhisthana Kula, the College of Public Preceptors, and our Center President. We understand these people to be the likely sources for leadership through the crisis surrounding Sangharakshita and the Triratna Buddhist Order and Community.

Our responsibility in the SVC is to create conditions that encourage the spiritual well-being of the Aryaloka community. Our responsibility is equally to be aware of conditions that may be adverse to that well-being. Sadly, we find that the sexual behavior of Sangharakshita as the founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community, certain of his teachings and the complicity – conscious or unconscious – of senior order members resulted in a culture that has harmed people, and that the recurring uproar about this history constitutes adverse conditions for harmonious sangha life.

Unfortunately, the response of the TBC leadership over the decades has failed to put these matters to rest. New information, stories and reactions come in waves, with this recent recurrence being particularly active, as it finds a ready platform on the internet. The disclosures and new writings that are being shared may be part of a necessary and healing process. At the same time, they have a vitiating effect on Aryaloka as a spiritual center.

The recent revelations and online postings have shaken our community. Much time and energy has been given to discussion of these issues, in classes and groups and one-to-one. Several members of the Order, Mitras, and friends have lost confidence in Sangharakshita and Triratna. Some have left our community or withdrawn from the ordination process. All this hinders the development of our Center and sangha.

Aryaloka some years ago instituted its own ethical guidelines, grievance policy, and policies for safeguarding our community. We are confident in the actions and approaches of our own leadership. However, the repeated incursion of accusations and the history of questionable behaviors by Sangharakshita and some Order members continues to undermine our efforts.

We would like the leadership of our Triratna Community to know this, to know how the controversies have a damping effect on our spiritual well-being and our capability to grow as a Triratna Buddhist Center. We would like to ask that leadership communicate in the strongest possible way reassurance that none of the past troubling behaviors will be tolerated in the TBC; none of the harmful ‘teachings’ given explicitly (or tacitly encouraged) will be permitted, now or in the future. In other words, we ask the leadership to give a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the behaviors, teachings, and values that were part of the harm-causing past. We want to know that the leadership has this intention. And we would like to know what specific steps will be taken to make sure the behaviors are not tolerated and that the harmful teachings will not be permitted.

We understand that extensive discussion and open sharing of stories are happening at the moment, with the Adhisthana Kula specifically desiring to ‘seed conversations’. We feel it is crucial that the positive efforts be visible to the whole of the international Triratna Community and made public. Future newcomers to our Centers need to be able to see the unfortunate aspects of our history and to see the current Movement-wide commitments to ethical behavior and clarity concerning what are Dharma teachings rather than social ‘experiments’ or reflections of a particular personality.

We have attached two Appendices to this letter. Appendix I specifies the practices and values which we believe to be problematic. Appendix II recommends several courses of action which we believe may help our community move on from the troubled history.

The Triratna Buddhist Order and Community is our spiritual home. We suffer with its painful history. We look forward to a future of spiritual friendship, dedication to spiritual transformation and love of the Dharma.

May the Dharma flourish forever more.
With metta and karuna for all beings,
The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council

Amala, Chair
Vidhuma, Vice-Chair, Mitra Convener
Shrijnana, Aryaloka Executive Director
Dayalocana, Temporary Chair, Aryaloka Board of Directors
Surakshita, Mitra Convener
Lilasiddhi, Mitra Convener
Khemavassika, Mitra Convener

APPENDIX I: Areas of Concern

We are heartened by and wholeheartedly support the Adhisthana Kula’s recent acknowledgement that the following ideas form no part of Triratna teachings today:

that sex is an aid to kalyana mitrata (spiritual friendship)
that men are spiritually superior to women
that any sexual orientation is spiritually superior to another
that single people are spiritually superior to those in relationships or with families

We also wholeheartedly support the clear and current statement from the College of Public Preceptors that sex between teachers and students, preceptors and ordinands is inappropriate and can be harmful.

In addition to the above, we request acknowledgement of the following:

The bullying and coercion that characterized some situations in the past have no place in the Triratna Order and Community today.
The principles of kindness and respect are paramount and are to be honored at all times.

Given the very public nature of the criticisms of the Triratna Order and Community, we request that acknowledgment of all the above be publicized much more widely than they have been to date.

We are also aware of statements by some members of the Order that those who have expressed criticism of the Order should resign. We feel that all Order members have valuable contributions to make, that we need to listen to one another with openness and respect, and cannot support such “love it or leave it” language.

APPENDIX II – Recommendations

Many of the ideas and teachings listed in APPENDIX I are expressions of bias, a human tendency rooted in dualistic thinking. In recognition of the harm that bias can cause, we recommend that anti-bias training be provided to people who teach at Triratna Centers and who take on a mentoring role within the community.
As a community dedicated to the development of kindness and compassion, it is especially grievous to us that people have been harmed while in association with our community.
We ask that the leadership of the Triratna Buddhist Order, on behalf of the Order, offer an unequivocal apology to those who were personally harmed by the inappropriate sexual behavior of Sangharakshita and some Order members, as well as by hurtful teachings regarding women and families.
We recommend that official Triratna publications and instructional materials be evaluated for expressions of the unacceptable views and practices mentioned in Appendix 1. We ask that traces of them be removed from circulation and use in active study. This includes anything published by Windhorse Publications, Free Buddhist Audio, The Buddhist Center Online, the Triratna Dharma Training Course for Mitras, and all required and suggested materials for people in the ordination training process. Archives would continue to hold the complete materials.
We suggest that the College engage a neutral party, unaffiliated with the former FWBO or TBO/TBC, to review the history of these practices and teachings. We ask that one of the roles of an independent review be to determine what institutional structures and interpersonal dynamics prevented these significant ethical breaches from being effectively addressed for decades. We ask that based on the findings of the independent review, changes be made to the decision-making structures and processes so that any issues that arise in the future can be addressed fully and expediently.
The Triratna Buddhist Community is a large and complex one. The decision-making process for matters that affect the entire community (Order members, mitras and friends) is unclear. We recommend the process for making decisions be described in writing. We recommend that this description include an outline of the responsibilities of the various leadership components of the TBC, including the College of Public Preceptors, the International Order Conveners, the International Council and any other persons or groups that function in a leadership/decision-making capacity. Further, we recommend that this written description be publicized and easily available for all members of the TBC.

39Comments

Add yours

1

NO NAME on May 9, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Reply

Maybe, since the Yanks have tried to deal with this more professionally and honestly, Triratnas CPP should read this https://www.lionsroar.com/confronting-abuse-power/

Confronting Abuse of Power

BY LION’S ROAR STAFF| NOVEMBER 20, 2014

Abuse can take different forms: financial, psychological, physical, sexual. Recent headlines have revealed that spiritual communities, including Buddhist ones, are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by male authority figures. At the same time, all over North America, targets of sexual abuse and institutional betrayal are speaking out with newfound energy, their words and experiences echoing over instant media to resonate with millions of others. More and more people are calling out habitual oppressions, exorcising self-blame, and inspiring others to wake up, saying, “No more! I am worthy of decency and respect.” Like never before, institutions such as colleges, military forces, workplaces, and spiritual organizations are hastening to move forward from patterns of denial. Typical of the new messaging, the White House recently launched a campaign that sets a new normal for group responsibility, making it uncomfortable for us to stand idly by while friends and fellows abuse. We are casting off centuries of myths that normalized abuses or at best treated them as an insurmountable problem. Communities are genuinely asking, what can we do differently?

Ordinary worldly knowledge is valuable here. Research shows that when secrecy, minimizing, and rationalizations about abuse are overcome, healing and safety begin. Much progress has been made in recognizing the cultural causes and conditions that give rise to abuses of power and of persons, especially those based on sex, race, class, sexual orientation, disability, and ethnicity. The World Health Organization, for example, lists the lionizing of a violent and dominating masculinity, female subordination, and racism as a potent recipe for abuse. Examining which groups are included and which are excluded in teaching, governance, and wealth can also tell us where to expect challenges. Are we willing to look at our Buddhist communities for these sorts of well-known habitual patterns and imbalances and then to dissolve them?

A new way forward will also require daring. If we really think about our future, sanghas must not just be collections of individual meditators but also healthy communities that promote inclusion and provide a good ground for the dharma to flourish. We cannot afford to ignore the value of all our relations. It is said that dharma and the bonds of dharma communities can only be destroyed from the inside. Abuse, then, is not just a personal “incident”; it is also a great threat to the continuity of wisdom traditions. Communities must find confidence to act, shifting toward greater respect and empowerment for women, minorities, youth, and others frequently targeted for abuse. In a community that listens and trusts these voices, would-be abusers cannot operate.

How would this kind of community feel? What would happen differently if someone were abusive? How much more potential would be realized by its children? —Pam Rubin

Buddhadharma: Each of you is familiar with communities that have been shaken by teacher misconduct. That initial period when the abuse of power is exposed—what does it feel like, personally and within a community?

Shinge Chayat: Trauma, in a word—there’s the realization that a person you trusted and admired has disappointed you and brought everything into question. If a teacher is no longer trustworthy, everything is up for examination. We tend to elevate teachers to a noble height and refuse to see their human failings until they have manifested in very difficult and dangerous ways. So even though it feels terrible, becoming disillusioned can help us break through delusion and bring clarity to what’s going on. Unfortunately, what’s going on is often veiled in secrecy; practitioners may feel or sense something happening in a community but the culture discourages questioning. So when misconduct is finally revealed, it’s an enormous shock.

Buddhadharma: David, you were part of the Shambhala community when allegations first came to light that Osel Tendzin had knowingly infected someone with HIV. What was your experience of being in the community at that moment?

David Whitehorn: It was shocking. It felt like suddenly the whole world had changed. A lot of strong emotions came up—anger, sadness, disappointment. And lots of people had opinions about what had happened and why. During that period when everyone was feeling extremely exposed and vulnerable, we benefited greatly from the calm advice of teachers outside of our community who had been working with us. They had the respect of everyone in the community and were extremely helpful in navigating the divisions within the group about what had happened and how to move forward.

Buddhadharma: Lama Palden, what has been your experience of communities dealing with misconduct or abuse?

Lama Palden: At some of Kalu Rinpoche’s centers in France, there were lamas who had engaged in unethical behavior and had to be removed. I’ve also acted as a mediator at dharma centers here, where the unethical conduct involved Western teachers.

As others have said, there’s always a great deal of shock and disappointment in these situations. There’s also a lot of hurt and a sense of betrayal. One of the serious concerns is that many of the people who get hurt the most are those who already have experienced abuse in their childhood. Instead of the dharma being a place where they can heal and find safety, it becomes another place of perpetration and hurt.

I’ve been in the room during some of these mediations where there was so much pain. We really have to acknowledge the level of pain that unethical activity brings forth in people. Just unbelievable pain. And I’ve seen hundreds of women turned off of the dharma. When encounters with abuse happen early on in someone’s dharma career, they haven’t yet developed the skills that might help them stay.

Buddhadharma: We should also point out that the young Kalu Rinpoche put out a YouTube video a couple of years ago talking about his own experience of being abused growing up in a monastery.

Lama Palden: Yes, he has brought the issue out of the closet for the Tibetan and Vajrayana communities, because of course it’s happening in all the monasteries. Some of my British male friends have told me it’s very much like the British public schools system—it’s something that has always gone on and everybody knows, but nobody talks about it. I think it was very courageous of Rinpoche to bring the misconduct to light. He wants to work inside the system for change.

Buddhadharma: Alan, what are some of your experiences and observations of the problem of abuse of power?

Alan Senauke: Shortly after I had begun working at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship in 1991, the organization was referenced as a resource in the back of Peter Rutter’s book, Sex in the Forbidden Zone. When the book came out, suddenly women who had been victimized by teachers and then excluded by their communities started calling us.

I’ve noticed that people in pain not only turn inward and build a cyst or capsule around themselves for protection but they also turn against each other. It’s not just that people have different opinions of what’s going on and what should be done. Often the teacher has been the binding energy of a community, and when that is removed or shattered, practitioners can’t find closeness or mutual support within the group. So it can be a volatile and fragile situation. It’s very destructive and can run like wildfire through a community. Once that fire starts burning, it’s difficult to control.

Buddhadharma: Shinge, looking back on the conflict that arose in your community, The Zen Studies Society, what were some of the conditions that gave rise to ethical misconduct and how it was handled?

Shinge Chayat: There’s so much to the answer, but I could distill it to one word: secrecy. When secrets are well hidden, well kept, people become complicit without realizing it. No one is really sure what’s going on, and no one is allowed to question things—especially in an Asian patriarchal structure that discourages transparency. Unethical behavior that may be accepted in another culture—not necessarily approved of, but tacitly ignored—is not okay in ours. Our framework of Western psychology has us more predisposed to look at issues directly and not allow the same old patterns. We want to see what’s really going on, and when that investigative spirit runs up against an old guard saying don’t question authority, even more divisiveness can be created. That’s been a big issue for us at The Zen Studies Society. We’ve had to learn how to question authority, and we’ve had to see all the aspects, whether cultural or personal, that led to the structure of a secret society and the elevation of one human being to a god-like status, which created a situation where no one felt safe to ask questions.

Buddhadharma: Lama Palden, what are your thoughts on this? You know the structure of the Tibetan Buddhist world where rinpoches are held in high regard.

Lama Palden: When I first came to the dharma, I stayed with Kalu Rinpoche and the Sixteenth Karmapa. Early on in the course of informal conversation, the Sixteenth Karmapa mentioned some concerns about various lamas and tulkus, saying he was having trouble with this one or that one. Kalu Rinpoche had also expressed concerns. So I knew there were problems of misconduct and that not everything was completely above board.

I think it’s important to look at what leads to these things happening in the first place. One cause is emotional isolation. Teachers may be coming from afar, but even if they’re not from a different culture, there’s a tendency for spiritual teachers to become isolated; they don’t have friends and colleagues with whom they can share trials and tribulations. Another problem is that sometimes teachers feel they can’t reach out for help, or that they’re not supposed to need help. And of course, in the Asian model, such resources weren’t available, although perhaps they could have gone to their own teachers and in some cases may have. But for the most part, teachers aren’t getting their own psychological needs met.

As teachers, we need to be very conscious of what our own emotional and psychological needs are, and we need to try and meet those in healthy ways rather than pretend they’re not there. And we need community. I’m in a Buddhist teachers’ group in the Bay Area that has been meeting for over twenty years to talk openly and frankly about whatever issues arise for us.

David Whitehorn: I think the question of how the student-teacher relationship is presented plays a big part in issues of misconduct. The old admonition of the Buddha is “Don’t just believe what I tell you; see if it actually makes sense to you.” To the extent that that’s part of a community’s culture, it can be very helpful in validating the responsibility students hold for their own path and awakening. On the other hand, Buddhist practice undermines conventional, conceptual ways of dealing with the world and morality, which can be confusing, especially to those first encountering the path. Other people can take advantage of that. A classic sort of pickup line you might hear longtime practitioners use on newer students is “Oh, honey, this is advanced Buddhism. If you want to know what this tantric stuff is really about, let’s go to my place.”

Alan Senauke: My experience has been quite different. At Berkeley Zen Center, from very early on, the precepts were communicated to us in both a relative and absolute manner, so conventional morality was never set aside. But I think the more important element—and this is a real concern of mine—is the degree to which the practice is focused on a single so-called “enlightened being” rather than a relationship of mutual accountability between teacher and student. Secrecy flows from a delusion about power and authority. The more the sangha upholds precept practice, the more protected people are. Certainly there is a patriarchal model in Asia, and we tend to idealize it here. But translating that model into our cultural terms without real adaptation is a huge mistake. In the West, we have a shared ethical dimension that should not be discarded when we enter the practice but should instead harmonize with it. I feel the antidote to misconduct has been ethical training. I’m not talking about guidelines and procedures—I’m talking about actually studying the precepts from early on.

Buddhadharma: What else can help change the course of ethical misconduct? David, knowing what you know now, is there something the Shambhala community could have done differently when Osel Tendzin was head of the organization?

David Whitehorn: That’s hard to say, given that times were very different, and the stage of development in the community and in people’s individual practice was so different. Greater transparency is certainly key, as is having ethics laid out right at the beginning.

Buddhadharma: Shinge, do you feel there is anything that could have been done while Eido Roshi was still head of the community that could have changed the whole course of events?

Shinge Chayat: We couldn’t do anything until he was no longer holding all the power. People tried many times. In the seventies, many of us left because there was no way to make any change happen. When I came back in the nineties, it seemed changes had occurred for the better. But really, he still had all the power. When all the power in a community is in one person’s hands and that person is supported unconditionally by others, including board members and senior students, there’s no way you can say, “Hey! This is wrong. We have to make some changes here.” It can’t happen. Prior boards had tried their best.

In 2010, when the revelation of a new relationship came to light, one of the first things we did was ask Eido Roshi to step down as a member of the board. He was the head of the board as well as abbot. With both secular and spiritual dimensions held by the same person, there was no balance of power. The board basically rubber-stamped whatever Eido Roshi said. So the first thing we had to do was ask him to submit a letter of resignation. That happened very quickly, within three weeks after that revelation of the affair. Then we worked with the Faith Trust Institute and asked them to help us get through the next stages, which included not just dealing with the problems that had accrued over decades but also looking at how to avert problems like that in the future.

Buddhadharma: You’ve all talked about the shock people experience when it’s revealed that their trusted teacher has been involved in ethical misconduct or abuse. After the shock subsides, how can a community start to rebuild?

Alan Senauke: The first thing is to really listen. Listen to everybody—on all sides—and create open forums, combining people from within the community and without who can offer equanimity and presence to hear everyone, including those who have been accused of crossing boundaries. Then there has to be some discernment process. In the vinaya, there are prescribed remedies for different breaches of the precepts before a monk or a nun can sit in the whole circle again. They have to make confession and repentance, either to their peers or to their elders. We can translate that to our present-day experience in different ways, but there has to be a lot of speaking and listening.

Also, the sangha has to hold the grief that some people will not be healed. Even with the best of intentions, some people will be wounded and leave. Some will not want to heal, and that includes victims and perpetrators. And when they don’t, there’s nothing you can do, but as a holder of the container, you still have a responsibility to make every effort. We have to have the groundedness to be able to hold all of that.

Shinge Chayat: The process of healing, of regaining trust after decades during which power was abused and trust was lost, is a very long one. It may take years for people to feel they have finally come to a place where they are healed. The immediate situation may be taken care of, but you have to constantly work on the process. You can’t just have one sangha meeting or some kind of guidance from professionals in the field and then say, “Okay, we’ve got it!”

The Faith Trust Institute made five recommendations, which we followed: Eido Roshi had to end his tenure as abbot; he needed to make a full public apology acknowledging his misconduct and regret for harm done; those students who wanted to continue studying with him had to do it on their own, not under the auspices of The Zen Studies Society; we had to conduct a formal financial audit; and we needed to consult with colleagues who had gone through similar misconduct issues.

After those things happened, we began working with a wonderful group of professionals called An Olive Branch. They led a mediation session with Eido Roshi and the board of directors. We also held several sangha meetings at which An Olive Branch was present and had a sangha weekend that was probably the most important thing for us. We invited everyone to come and spend the entire weekend going through a very difficult but important facilitated discussion. There were so many raw emotions, and so many incidents were brought to light that we hadn’t been aware of. We created a timeline that filled an entire wall. People came up and posted comments, asked further questions, and shared what they knew. It was all out there, which was really key—we went from an organization plagued by secrecy and authoritarianism to one that is transparent and hewing to ethical guidelines. We spent two full years with An Olive Branch working on developing best practices for a board that could represent the sangha and help make sure that such transgressions never happened again.

As a result of this process, I feel that sangha members are speaking with clarity and ethical consideration for one another and that we’ve returned to fulfilling our task, which is living our bodhisattva vow, manifesting our insight.

David Whitehorn: In our situation, in the early nineties, we were not only recovering from the trauma of discovering that a trusted leader had let us down but also grieving the loss of our founding teacher, who was a great mahasiddha. Fortunately, Trungpa Rinpoche had trained two people, the other one being his son, Sakyong Mipham, who for five or so years following that traumatic event just listened. He travelled around and listened to everybody and, bit by bit, began to reconstruct the community. The profound listening at the beginning was essential.

Lama Palden: The young Kalu Rinpoche told me a similar story, that when he took responsibility for centers all around the world at the age of eighteen, he had to step in to address issues of abuse. At one center, he told all the women to come speak to him one by one. It took two days to hear them all out. He told me he cried the whole time. It was important that the women were heard. And then, of course, he did take measures to deal with the problems, but acknowledging the level of pain and upset is a crucial first step.

Compassion and loving-kindness have to be emphasized and worked with much more in our spiritual communities, both in how teachers practice and develop and in how they guide students. I think it’s a failure of compassion when people are used for other people’s satisfaction.

I also want to reiterate what Shinge was saying about boards. We’re Americans talking about Buddhist centers in America. There are nonprofit laws here governing religious organizations, and boards are a key part of accountability. Nonprofit laws exist to protect the public; as religious or spiritual people, we shouldn’t try to circumvent those laws just so the board can be a rubber stamp for the teacher.

Buddhadharma: When misconduct occurs, leaders generally try to see if mediation is possible. But how realistic is it to draw new boundaries around a teacher who has committed abuses of power multiple times? In order for people to feel safe and protected in their sangha, at what point do you say the conversation is over and stricter measures are needed, perhaps involving the judicial system?

Alan Senauke: In Scott Edelstein’s book, Sex and the Spiritual Teacher, he distinguishes between garden-variety delusion, if you will, and pathology. There is a difference, and not all of us are capable of making that discernment; skilled, professional evaluation is essential to assess the situation. If a teacher crosses a boundary out of loneliness or isolation and you can bring that person back to the shore that we’re all standing on, great. But if there is a pattern of pathology or predation, forget it. You’ll burn out the sangha trying to rein in somebody like that. I know of sanghas that have ended up firing their teacher and selling their center because the pattern continued over and over, and it became clear that resolution wasn’t possible. In those cases, it was far more than a question of reminding somebody of their vows or the precepts.

Lama Palden: There needs to be a lot more education about the nature of student–teacher relations, that sexuality is something that the student has a full and complete right to not engage in with a teacher. This leads to a much larger question about how centers are structured in terms of authority, how that authority enters teacher–student relationships, and how people are educated about those structures. These relationships need to be based on conscious mutual agreements.

But we also have to have compassion for teachers; they should be given a chance to rehabilitate, to heal, and to work on themselves. Sometimes with therapy and abstaining from teaching for a year or two, they can come back into the role of a teacher, but sometimes the problems run too deep. In France, in our lineage, four lamas who had been running the center for thirty years had to be removed.

Knowing many friends, both teachers and students, involved with the San Francisco Zen Center, I’m aware that thirty-plus years after the events surrounding Richard Baker and his departure, people are still healing. It’s a long process.

David Whitehorn: Yes, these are very long-term issues, perhaps lifelong or beyond. Shambhala has two hundred centers all over the world, and periodically we hold gatherings for representatives from all the centers. At one of these, we were to discuss twelve major issues that the leadership had determined were of interest to the wider sangha. But all of a sudden a bunch of people jumped up and said, “Wait a minute. We want to talk about what happened with the Regent, Osel Tendzin, fifteen years ago.” So we formed a new group to discuss it. It was wonderful to have that spontaneous, genuine response.

Our sangha did split years ago when Osel Tendzin left; a separate organization was created. And there continue to be questions regarding the extent to which the Regent’s contribution to the development of Shambhala should be acknowledged.

Shinge Chayat: That’s a big issue, isn’t it? How to acknowledge the good someone has done while also deploring the hurt they have caused for many people.

David Whitehorn: The process of trying to determine the extent to which someone who has been guilty of misconduct can become a contributing member of the community is not easy. Is the person in a position of authority that they really can’t handle? They may be removed from that position at least temporarily, but then after working with them, the question is, can they go back or not? Is it appropriate? You’re never really sure; there’s a lot of uncertainty. Compassion is so important, in the sense of seeing what the person can really do and who they really are. It’s not compassionate to put them in a position they can’t handle.

Buddhadharma: Given that healing from traumatic events is such a long-term process, perhaps we can’t ever talk about them as being completely in the past. But in the time that has elapsed, how have these events and their aftermath affected the culture of your communities? Have the internal dynamics changed?

Shinge Chayat: Initially, the events affected us in a negative way. We were attacked on all sides; people who were really concerned about the women who were harmed felt that we weren’t acting quickly enough to make things right. We were cautious in ways that felt necessary. It takes time to do something from a place of right action; you can’t just have knee-jerk reactivity. But some people were so angry that they left and will never come back. A number of sangha members decided to follow Eido Roshi. They felt that his greatness as a teacher superseded his flaws. They believed what he had to offer as a teacher was far beyond what anyone else could give them, so they wanted to stay with him. That division initially left us understaffed at the monastery and at the New York temple as well. Egyoku Roshi of the Zen Center of Los Angeles, who has been a tremendous source of advice and support, said, “Those who need to go should go; don’t worry about it. New people will come.” And sure enough, after three and a half years, we have a cohesive community. More and more people are feeling the faith in what we’re doing and are drawn to the vigor of the practice. It’s been an exhausting time, but now there’s a great sense of optimism.

Buddhadharma: Is the structure of your sangha less hierarchical now that Eido Roshi has left?

Shinge Chayat: My leadership style is very different from Eido Roshi’s, just as his was very different from his teacher’s, Soen Nakagawa Roshi. The feeling about a teacher’s role is going to change depending on those different ways of being. My style is much more relational. I check in with people; I don’t make decisions autonomously. People feel that they are gaining a sense of responsibility, that they’re contributing to the way decisions are made.

Buddhadharma: Lama Palden, what can you say about how these major upheavals change a community in the longterm?

Lama Palden: There’s often a huge divide that happens and a split in the sangha, but on the positive side, if traumatic events can be turned to the path and handled in a conscious, compassionate manner, changes can lead to a much more mature community, one with more resiliency and transparency. As has been said, some people are not going to heal, either because they don’t want to or because they lack the capacity to do so. This is why I think so much focus needs to be on preventing these situations from arising in the first place. But our Buddhist practice is to turn all of life’s circumstances into the path of the bodhisattva, so if we’re each able to do that, and if communities can do that, then these traumas can lead to more maturity and awakening.

Buddhadharma: I think it’s also important to point out that the degree to which people heal or don’t heal largely depends on the skillfulness or unskillfulness of the community in relating to the abuse that has occurred.

Lama Palden: Absolutely, and more specifically it depends on to the leadership of that community.

Buddhadharma: For people reading this—across the traditions and in different communities, some big, some small—what’s the takeaway here? If they’re sitting down with their sangha members next week or if they’re on a board, what should they be thinking about in terms of addressing ethical issues within their community? What kinds of guidelines need to be in place?

Alan Senauke: I wrote a small book about this in the late nineties called Safe Harbor. I was just rereading it, and I feel like it’s still completely relevant. A central point of the book is that you have to have clear ethical guidelines, perhaps more explicit than the community would like. The bodhisattva precepts already include all such behaviors, but guidelines need to be more clearly articulated than the precepts. A center has to have an outline of what its processes are, whether formal or informal. Everything is better resolved at the least formal level necessary, but sometimes that’s not sufficient and a formal process is required. Of course, I want to offer the caveat that you can have the best guidelines and procedures and even the best outside mediators, but it really comes down to whether all parties actually want reconciliation, repentance, and renewal. Those are the intentions that would have to lie underneath as the groundwork for guidelines and procedures.

Lama Palden: I would add that centers need an ethics committee, and the people who sit on an ethics committee should not sit on the board as well. Also, guidelines that spell out the procedures in place when someone brings a complaint should be known to sangha members and to the public. It’s a question of education.

David Whitehorn: It’s important to remember that there are three jewels in Buddhism: Buddha, dharma, and sangha. Often we’re not that interested in the third jewel, but a key part of the path is to have a sangha and to care about one another. From a Shambhala point of view, creating a society that manifests the essence of Buddhist understanding and teaching is the main point of why we’re here. The bodhisattva vow is to work on our own development so we can be helpful to others. The procedures and processes that people have talked about are looked upon as practice, so if you’re on the ethics committee, this is a practice that is going to call upon your deepest understanding of buddhadharma to manifest guidance and healing for a healthy sangha.

Lama Palden: So much is dependent on the leadership; they’re the ones who are going to have to get outside help and take responsibility for the situation. I’ve sometimes been very disappointed when teachers have refused to deal with the issue. I’ve known a couple of instances in which the board members and everyone quit, and there was a big split. It wasn’t so much that the behavior was that bad—it was a one- or two-time thing that could have been dealt with—but the teachers refused to hear other people, to take responsibility openly and publicly in their community. They just buried their head in the sand.

Shinge Chayat: There’s a wonderful koan that really points to that. Someone is asked if an enlightened person is subject to causation, and he says no, because enlightenment means complete liberation, so how can you be subject to the law of causation? He gets turned into a fox for five hundred lifetimes for that. Eventually, in the guise of a human, he approaches a new teacher, who says to him, “An enlightened person does not ignore causation.”

I think many people have this idea that if the teacher is enlightened, how could he be acting unethically? The reality is that we all have karmic baggage; we’re all human. It’s important for us to work on ourselves as teachers. If someone feels somehow entitled not to have to deal with these things, not to have to take responsibility for his or her actions, then there is an incorrect belief that somehow deep wisdom is enough—it’s not enough if we ignore causation.

Lama Palden: In these cases, I feel there is a fundamental lack of realization of the emptiness of self. When there’s a lack of realization and a failure to integrate this basic understanding, teachers can be highly defensive and refuse to deal with anyone. Yet some of these same people are teaching about emptiness.

Whether accusations are true or untrue, teachers must face them and take responsibility for whatever needs to be accounted for. They have to be willing to fully meet the situation. When I see teachers getting defensive, for me, that’s a sign that there really isn’t realization of emptiness of self. If there were, what would there be to defend?
2

Stephen on May 10, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Reply

Excellent analysis from No Name and Stardust.
3

NO NAME on May 11, 2017 at 7:46 am
Reply

http://punctured-false-prophets.blogspot.co.uk/ , a blogpost from 2009, makes for interesting reading. After admitting hed had sex with Sangharakshita , Triratna Manchester Centre senior Ratnaguna, justifies S by claiming all the revelations that are coming to light were ‘public knowledge’ and attributes the criticisms to the whims of a person who hates S
Personally, I believe the widespread criticisms are coming from people inside and outside Triratna who ‘hate’ abuse, lies, cover ups, and attacks on victims/survivors. I believe that attributing all the criticism to “someone who hates Sangharakshita” is scapegoating, is it not?
- 4
  
  tenpel on May 11, 2017 at 8:05 am
  Reply
  
  It is. It is also a common tactic of so called cults to denounce critics as haters. For them critics can only have a bad motivation. It’s part of coping with the own cognitive dissonances.
  Of course critics can also act based on hate but they can also act based on genuine concern. Denouncing all critics as haters won’t meet reality – except you are speaking about a true hate group.
- 5
  
  tenpel on May 11, 2017 at 10:55 am
  Reply
  
  Maybe its good to stress again, how potentially self-delusive this claim is that criticism(s) is/are issued by “a person who hates S”.
  1) If for instance someone (lets say Trump) lies and someone says full of hate “he lies!”. The lying of Trump is still a fact. The hate cannot undermine the truth of the fact that a lie was issued. It is not proven in any way that a critic hates S. However, to impose hate to a critic seems to be basically a means to deny the facts (or to brush them under the carpet).
  2) Even if someone who was harmed by S speaks about that harm with anger (or hate), it should be responded to with compassion. The person suffered from the abuse and from the afternath of the absue (how it was dealt with). To use the anger of the person been abused as a reason to undermine the creditability of what the person has to say or to attack his character shows only that one is not capable to stand with facts and the pain of others in patience (peace), and that one is lacking compassion.
  3) Anger as a response to injustice or abuse can be considered to be wrong because anger is in general an afflictive mind process (klesha), however, ignorance towards suffering and turning a blind eye on wrong doing is also an afflictive mind process (klesha). The person who has anger when seeing injustice is at least not ignorant but has a sober discrimination about what is right and wrong. This is a quality. What is more constructive to be touched by injustice or to be totally indifferent towards wrong doings and injustice? How can things be improved to the better if injustice and wrong doings are ignored, denied or downplayed?
  4) Announcing that criticism must come from hate will likely turn into a tool of self-manipulation or self-censorship. You avoid to criticise S in order to not be judged collectively or by yourself as a person of hate. Based on that you might also built a distorted feeling of moral superiority that looks down on the critics or those been harmed who dare to speak up with contempt. These are no qualities but kleshas and they block your spiritual path.
6

NO NAME on May 11, 2017 at 8:00 am
Reply

The ARYALOKA letter and the comments from TBCs Manchester and Liverpool centers are one suspects, only the tip of the iceberg. I feel certain that the hypocrisy of the CPP and the Adhisthana Kula, is being pointed out by numerous Center members behind the scenes. The absence of evidence of such communications in the public domain can be attributed to a well trained ‘cover up’ team, members of which have been travelling around centers to quell the dissent over ‘bad information’ [or what the Trump refers to as ‘fake news’] Seemingly aimed at continuing the cover up, CPP/AK seniors are providing their credulous new followers with ‘alternative facts’ [elsewhere known as lies]
- 7
  
  Stardust on May 11, 2017 at 12:42 pm
  Reply
  
  Adressing the hypocrisy when still operating in a mode of dependency is quite courageous and i admire that. Imagine only the internal diversity in views and opinions they are up against. I think the claimed anarchy should be embraced móre fully and the right for individual centres to exercise legal independency be claimed.
  If the A kula and the CCP’s hypocricies are being pointed out by numerous members behind the scenes one would expect some visibility seeing the claimed honosty and transparancy. They need to fully admit to their hypocracy to become trustworthy.
  - 8
    
    NO NAME on May 11, 2017 at 7:50 pm
    Reply
    
    Which they will never do because they have invested too much and have so much to lose. These are people who in many cases either engaged in abuse themselves or stood by and did nothing while it happened.This inner circle have already shown their inability to deal with the situation effectively with the lengthy response they issued recently-it was jam packed with lies, half truths and all of the same garbage theyve been feeding us for decades.
9

Stardust on May 11, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Reply

Besides watching Pamela Rubin on the inappropriateness of reconsiliation in ”The wrong Paradigm” linked in the article:

it is worth waching her here also:

On believing and supporting people who speak out about their experiences of power/spiritual/sexual abuse:

On how creating sane and healthy reference points and boundaries implies compassion for both offenders and victims:

On conditions in general for abuse in buddhist, among other, communities:
10

NO NAME on May 11, 2017 at 9:32 pm
Reply

I sincerely hope the AK and CPP watch these videos-this is how people in the real world, outside abusive cults, think
Stop the lies, stop the cover ups, stop the harbouring of sex offenders
TBC GET REAL
- 11
  
  tenpel on May 11, 2017 at 10:41 pm
  Reply
  
  Mhm. And the mindfulness movement in the UK seems to lack mindfulness by promoting directly the TBO…
  
  How can I find a course or practitioner?
  
  You can find a mindfulness course or practitioner through:
  …
  A local Buddhist centre. If you have a Buddhist centre near you they may run mindfulness meditation sessions or courses. See The Buddhist Centre for details.
  …
  
  https://mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatments/mindfulness/mindfulness-courses/#.WRTm-8bqhE5
  - 12
    
    Stardust on May 12, 2017 at 9:37 am
    Reply
    
    Directing people with mental health problems to Triratna… mmm… i will ask someone to contact them.
    - 13
      
      tenpel on May 12, 2017 at 12:53 pm
      Reply
      
      Please do! It is really not good to send vulnerable people to organisations who have an unhealthy structure and set up.
      
      There is a Parliamentary Cross Party Report on Mindfulness that warns exactly about that (the person you know could use that in his/her argumentation):
      
      There are a number of concerns within the mindfulness community about the risks of rapid growth.
      
      Some practitioners report signi cant challenges when teaching mindfulness in mainstream settings such as health or education. The imperatives of these institutions can often overtake attention to skilful processes. Signi cant numbers of highly-skilled clinically-trained mindfulness teachers have left their employment within the NHS to pursue freelance mindfulness teaching because this disjuncture felt too challenging.
      
      We have concerns that the current commissioning environment within the public sector supports entrepreneurial and ambitious expansion by mindfulness training providers and that there can be poor scrutiny of quali cations and training in a eld where other forms of regulation may also be lacking (i.e. many freelance mindfulness teachers do not bene t from the usual governance structures of a professional body). Guidance needs to be developed by the main training centres to support commissioners of public services in selecting high-quality mindfulness training providers to work in the public sector.
      It is also important that teachers need to uphold strong ethical boundaries, by teaching in ways that are universally accessible to people of all faiths and none. There have been isolated reports of religious organisations offering compassion training within the NHS, and through this, inappropriately sharing their ideologies and personal spiritual ideas with participants.
      
      I know two cases of men (here from the blog because their wives wrote to me) where either a drug addict or an alcohole addict was sent to the NKT meditation classes. I find this as insane as sending people to Scientology to find healing.
      
      Did Mind read this Parliamentary Cross Party Report on Mindfulness at all? You could ask them also what they actual do to protect their clients from abuse of mindfulness. Do they have a person in charge for ethical issues, religious indoctrination etc. where people can complain to etc.?
      
      Someone wrote to me that the NKT (New Kadampa Tradition) is currently designing courses for the mental health market – including some on depression. For me as ex-NKT, knowing the damage and amount of indoctrination, stress, trauma, depression, Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) the NKT can cause to their followers, collaborating with them would be for me as insane as collaborating with Scientology… The NKT has also no expertise in these health issues. (They do not have even real expertise in mindfulness as it is understood in the mindfulness movement. Mindful means for them basically to remember the guru – Geshe la – or the hells or the precious human life [all of these topics can cause extreme stress and unbalance an unbalanced person even further…]. On top of that the NKT used to ridicule for instance breathing meditation as not “real practice” which led a friend of mine – for whom this practice was extremely helpful – to abandon it and to practice “guru yoga” [which is considered as real and essential practice]. The latter and the abandoning of the breathing meditation made my friend only confused and created great problems for him – in the short and long term run… The NKT didn’t care and Geshe la wrote to my friend when he sought his advice, he should just continue with “guru yoga” and Shugden practice this would fix everything! – It didn’t. So these types of narrow advice caused only more stress by creating wrong hopes and cutting him off from what him really helped because they considered what him really helped – breathing meditation – as inferior practice.)
      
      The UK – unlike Germany – seems to be especially blinded and careless in these fields… You could say, it appears strongly that they are not mindful at all that cults or extremely unhealthy groups could get via the NHS to the vulnerable and then indoctrinating and harming them …
- 14
  
  Stardust on May 12, 2017 at 9:11 am
  Reply
  
  I got the impression from the latest Frequently Asked Questions document that they are keeping track… 😉
  - 15
    
    Stardust on May 12, 2017 at 11:42 pm
    Reply
    
    Though watching the videos withóut a sane reference allready i fear one might simply feel terms as abuse and violations do not apply here ór that they áre taking appropriate action and responsability…
    
    Thanks Tenpel, maybe the Mind for mental health charity is merely unaware that they are linking to one specific organisation rather then a movement representing western buddhisme in general.
16

NSPCC Opens Triratna Case – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on May 17, 2017 at 9:11 pm
Reply

[…] A Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council […]
17

Julie on June 18, 2017 at 7:18 am
Reply

I feel really sad that all the good of TBC is being so damned. From a Buddhist perspective, I definitely and ABSOLUTELY see the need to address all the issues and wholeheartefly agree the need for an outside body to come and help sort this out. We have to make changes. However talking in an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ manner ceases to be helpful. There are some incredibly genuine true and good dedicated to the Dharma people in the movement who have done a lot of good (who are extremely pained by this news too) and also there are people I know who have worked through depression and addictions to the another better way of living their lives. Let’s please not throw the baby out with the bath water and yes address these issues but try to keep a sense of true perspective of all the good happening too. It’s not a black and white situation. And I am not trying to lessen the importance of what has happened in the past but can we maybe try to use a bigger wholer perspective, and use this as a vehicle to learn and move forward from.
- 18
  
  tenpel on June 18, 2017 at 9:12 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you very for this reminder, Julie!
- 19
  
  Mark Dunlop on June 19, 2017 at 6:22 pm
  Reply
  
  Julie writes: “From a Buddhist perspective, I definitely and ABSOLUTELY see the need to address all the issues and wholeheartefly agree the need for an outside body to come and help sort this out.”
  
  So what has been stopping TBC from addressing all the issues?
20

Julie on June 18, 2017 at 7:27 am
Reply

By the way – I think it is brilliant that you have taken the time to create this platform for discussions. 🙏
21

Stardust on June 18, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Reply

Julie@: The ”they” and ”us” you are referring to i feel should indeed be as specified as much as possible. Maybe they is no us. 🙂
22

Stardust on June 18, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Reply

maybe thére is no us.
23

NO NAME on June 19, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Reply

Lets get it straight there is an ‘us’ and its not created by anyone but S AND FWBO-this is no chicken and egg scenario
It was createdwhen Sangharakshita implemented his ‘new society’ with its higher and lower beings, he created an us v them
When he declared the couple to be the enemy of the spiritual community, he created an us and them
When Jayamati wrote “Tejananda’s final point is that we should be careful not to alienate the vast majority of its (Society’s) members by engaging in, or condoning behaviour which they would find morally reprehensible and utterly repugnant….he is quite right to point out that such bigotry does exist and that we must be very careful not to inflame ignorant passions by introducing such radical concepts too abruptly and without the opportunity to carefully explain the context that surrounds these ideas and principles. Thus one would need to be discreet in negotiating these principles with the general public.” thats us v them speaking
So, while recalling that the FWBO have some decent members, lets not lose sight of the bigger picture
Like when someone declares all Asian Buddhist traditions as corrupted…….the list goes on and on
- 24
  
  Stardust on June 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm
  Reply
  
  Forwarding link to another article on the Adhistana kula blog posted on the 19th of july.
  ”Triratna: Safeguarding with sincerity and integrity”
  from Munisha, European Safeguarding officer, Triratna.
  https://thebuddhistcentre.com/adhisthana-kula/triratna-safeguarding-sincerity-and-integrity
25

Stardust on June 20, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Reply

Here my comments with that post. I left some text out so do read the whole letter also.

”Over the last nine months I’ve read online much doubt and criticisme in this area”
No mention of criticisme within Triratna.

”My family suffered for many years with near-catastropic consequences of sexual abuse of a child”
”if the occasion ever arose I would refuse to defend the indefensible. Thankfully I’ve never been asked to do so.”
Note. That is very personal.
I am very sorry that happened, that is horrible.
You feel you are refusing to defend the indefensible. I am adressing you personally now as you make it very personal.

”With regard to the small number of accounts I have received of legally and ethically questionable sexual relations between Order members and their spiritual juniors, I can assure you that I have followed British Safeguarding requirements in every case”
Willingly and swiftly, yes we know… what about the very clear confusion, to say the least, about what is undefensible for Triratna Munisha..?
And what about all centers being legally independend now? What about autralia for example, that was recently mentioned here? What was done about that..?

”(though through inexperience I did make a mistake with the first case I dealt with, for which I have apologised to the person concerned, though overall I assessed and handled the case correctly.)”
How would it feel if it turned out you cóuld not… because you got indoctrinated. How if it turned out it is the revered father figure who has sexually abused his juniors in a very spiritually abusive and manipulating manner..?

Pauze to recuperate….(i actually feel nauseous)

”I do my Safeguarding work with external advice and training from British professional Safeguarding bodies such as the Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS) and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).”
External advice does not equal external investigation…
Ok back to a general respons…
No mention that any information regarding sexual activity with minors and possibly relevant information regarding Sangharakshita and the TBO can be sent directly to their Helpline on help@nspcc.org.uk, quoting case reference number 1028420

”For the protection of those giving such accounts, and for the protection of evidence, etc, this work is necessarily highly confidential. It is an article of Safeguarding good practice that nobody has a right to know about any particular case except the very few who need to know in order to address the matter effectively and prevent further harm.”
That is a SG’s officers job.
Again back to the question what is ”undefensible” and what is ethical for Triratna.
And what is SG and what is buddhist ethics.

”What is Safeguarding?
‘Safeguarding’ is a British term applied to the duty of legally established institutions to protect from harm ‘children’ (under 18s) and ‘vulnerable adults’ or ‘adults who may be at risk’ under certain conditions (much less easy to define).”
And this seems a crucial point. This and their documents leave a lot of space for defining healthy and ethical boundaries between teachers and pupils, students, attendees of Triratna activities.

”In the face of repeated calls for Triratna’s Safeguarding to be handled externally, I have checked with the CCPAS and NSPCC and several other Safeguarding experts and all agree that Safeguarding is supposed to be led and managed by those within an organisation.”
It has been a call for external investigátion and scrutiny.
Something has now been set in motion by the NSPCC, who are primarily concerned though with child- and not adult abuse.

”because only they have the relationships, understanding, influence and trust necessary to affect that organisation’s culture.”
IMO the internal ”understanding” and ”influence” are a dísadvantage here. But obviously… there has to be an good internal SG structure.

”it is the police who provide the final, external, safeguard.”
The NSPCC is passing on relevant information to the police.

”Ethics Kula I set up last year, which comprises Saddhaloka (College), Dhammarati (International Council) and Lokeshvara and Parami (Order convenors) with the help of one or two Order members with professional experience of Safeguarding and the British criminal justice system. This Ethics Kula is very much in its early stages of development as all its members have been very busy all year as members of the Adhisthana Kula.”
That is not all that reasuring somehow.

”even before the local BBC TV report in September 2016 I think most UK Triratna centres and other charities/enterprises had policies and officers.”
I am not even sure if i believe that to be true but if so merely child and ”vulnerable” adults polocies surely Munisha…
Back to Triratna’s understanding of vulnerable adult. To the discrepancy between SG and buddhist ethical conduct. To what seems to be a general dysfuntionality connected to heirarchy, doctrine. To a culture of whitewashing and minimising the harm done to young man, including some under the age of consent, who where manipulated by the revered father figure(s) who hadn’t always felt free to say no.

”but we have to bear in mind that our centres are all legally independent,”
I though she’d forgotten.

The last word for Munisha:

”and that Safeguarding as understood in Britain does not exist in many other countries.” Still, we can expect that the culture will spread”
- 26
  
  Stardust on June 21, 2017 at 5:48 am
  Reply
  
  Munisha stepped down as Communication Officer for a while, ready to resume her post after a new SG had been installed. New SG officer post turned into an assistent SG officer post, Munisha has apparently stayed on as head SG officer. As far as i can see Munisha is now again filling both positions. Unless they forgot to remove the below from the buddhistcentre website.
  ”Munisha – Media, Communications And Liaison Officer
  Munisha comes to the Development Team from Triratna’s ClearVision project, bringing with her many years experience of media, education, and interfaith work.”
  https://thebuddhistcentre.com/triratnadevelopment
  - 27
    
    Stardust on June 21, 2017 at 6:11 am
    Reply
    
    There is no visability on the website concerning identity or presence of an assistent SG officer either, besides the mentioning of it in the FAQ document on the Adhisthana blog.
28

emahaho on June 22, 2017 at 9:54 am
Reply

Julie
I agree that polarising is not helpful. I take responsibility for my time in the fwbo.
I embraced the fwbo, its socialist and hippie add-ons, communes, co-operatives, practising 24/7, the promise of enlightenment. There were some very useful things that I learnt, there were some kindnesses.
What I failed to see, for which I am responsible, was that it was a cult, with emphasis on authority, ego based power structures, dogma, shaming, aggression, selfishness, arrogance, emotional alienation. Yes, yes, this described me. It was like seeking like. And fwbo magnified these qualities. Yes, I was deceiving myself, self hypnosis. Sangharakshita was enlightened, by cloning, we too would become enlightened. Guru was supreme, fwbo was the only way, we lived in poverty, sacrificed energy and assets, it was paramount that people were saved, centres set up globally. But until they were converted into fwbo, people were anathema, just as women and families were. Ethics, accountability, were irrelevant, flexible.
When fwbo practices failed to work, instead of questioning their efficacy and wisdom, the answer then was to do more of the same.
No, it was not a 100% trauma, betrayal of trust and misery, stupidity and self delusion, but I am immensely relieved that I got out. And I feel regret that there are some in the fwbo who are stuck and suffering, in ill health, but vehemently defensive of it.
29

Darius Jedburgh on July 3, 2017 at 11:37 am
Reply

Yes emahaho, this point about people being stuck in Triratna, nursing ill-health, is interesting. Quite a few male OMs I once knew, died relatively young: in their early 60’s. Obviously, this is a bit unusual as people now-a -days tend to live until their 80’s. These deaths – about 6 – occurred over the last 10 years, and I felt this strange on reflection.

In some cases no explanation was forthcoming from Triratna on the cause of death.

Perhaps there is a sense in which people in Triratna, who have been deeply involved, feel trapped in the situation they are in. They feel they can’t leave, because relationships with family and long lost friends became remote and problematic decades earlier; what would happen to them if they resigned from the Order?
But with their personal morale at a low ebb, and their belief in Sangharakshita almost non-existant, their health inevitably begins to suffer; their lives consequently shortened. This is the conclusion I came to anyway; a tragic psychological malaise if true.
- 30
  
  emahaho on July 3, 2017 at 11:03 pm
  Reply
  
  being in fwbo felt like being in chernobyl, is no wonder some people’s health suffer.
  
  I remember d b, died while on solitary retreat from diabetic complications. if what I heard is true, I do hold fwbo accountable to some extent.
  
  p committed suicide, yes, she had had a difficult life, didn’t fit in and moved towards the fringes, though still living in community housing.
  
  l b became mentally ill and died?
  
  s in late 50s, resigned from order some years ago, terminally ill
  
  and the children of the fwbo, living in this environment, or abandoned when babies by their fathers, have heard some stories..
  
  the list goes on, is sad
31

emahaho on July 3, 2017 at 11:40 pm
Reply

I, like some others, lived in sub standard, totally drafty housing, more full of holes than brick, it seemed, and with poor heating, perhaps a bar fire. I remember being always cold.

r who had a calor gas heater was considered to be living in the height of luxury. I remember being resentful of v when she bought a duvet, I made do with hand me down blankets. it was hard to find the money to pay the electricity bill out of what fwbo was paying us for full time work.

I lived mostly on the cheapest vegetables like onions carrots potatoes. a cauliflower only for rare special occasions.
I remember s regularly scavenging in our local market, picking up bruised veg rejected by the stall holders.

Clothing mostly came from junk shops.

no doubt our health was also affected in some way by living in such conditions.
32

tenpel on July 14, 2017 at 5:13 pm
Reply

A good example how to deal with the abuse of power by Lamas or Rinpoches who (ab)use their power position to have sexual relationships with their students has been set in New York.

The Sangha of the »Kagyu Thubten Choling«, a New York-based monastery and retreat center in the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, hosted a Sangha-wide Disclosure Meeting. They informed their community that their founder and principal abbot of the monastery, Lama Norlha Rinpoche, had been involved sexually with a number of female students over the last two decades.

At the meeting it became clear that most of the women felt the (sexual) relationship to be detrimental to their psychological and personal wellbeing. The Sangha involved An Olive Branch, to facilitate a restoration of organizational health. http://www.an-olive-branch.org

Lama Norlha has since been removed from the teaching seat and KTC has established a new ethics policy that specifically prohibits sexual relationships between students and teachers, and a clear grievance procedure for resolving complaints and concerns through their Ethics Council.

See more here: https://www.lionsroar.com/kagyu-thubten-choling-addresses-sangha-about-lama-norhla-rinpoches-sexual-misconduct-with-students/

A good discussion can be found here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1412138312213001&id=100002505372892
33

exposingdeedsofdarkness on August 15, 2017 at 12:14 am
Reply

From my reading of this interview with these teachers, the awareness that abuses have been happening for decades is only that, awareness. Listening, on all sides, and creating forums is a bureaucratic way to NOT deal head-on with the abuse. I’m not sure where these teachers get their opinions that some who have been harmed will not want to heal. What? What exactly is that belief based on?

Perhaps there is no healing in the confines of that which harmed them, and leaving is the only way for these wounded to heal, so passing judgment on them because they leave wounded to find healing elsewhere is misinformed and myopic. Why should they stay if they have been abused?

Perpetrators who are of Tibetan blood, raised in the anachronistic, abusive monastery system obviously don’t understand that their behavior is reprehensible, so how do these teachers propose to re-train the lamas to not be abusive, and sexual predators, when it is built into the very fabric of Vajrayana Lamaism?

Some teachers have been removed (such as Norlha), but only after decades of sexual predation and psychological abuse of their students. It’s hard to say, wow, progress is being made, when the behavior by these teachers, and the horrific harm their victims experience, was known all along, and blind eyes turned.

Palden acknowledges in this interview that the sexual abuse of minors is rampant in the Tibetan monasteries, but she did not say that she was working to end the rapes, beatings and abuses of these children, and to reform the monastic system.

But, while testimony by victims of the sexual abuse by Vajrayana teachers, both Tibetan and Western, is exploding, other types of abuse are being ignored. Psychological abuse (well, just leave the teacher, if you stay, you are as culpable in the harm as the perpetrator, many say to the victims) is rampant also, and is based on the sociopathic guru/student relationship in Vajrayana Lamaism. Trauma based mind-control is used by many Tibetan and Western teachers, along with thought and emotion projection, dream penetration (spiritual rape), and multiple teachings on how leaving your teacher or breaking samaya will bring the student to the hell realms forever.

And then, of course, in Lamaism, there is ritual harm, intentional pujas and rituals done to control and manipulate the students (Kurukulle, anyone?). This is just as harmful as the other forms of abuse, but no one is talking about this. If you believe that doing prayers, pujas, empowerments etc, to get desired results such as ‘world peace’ and ‘liberating sentient beings’ is effective and manifests in reality, then you also believe that doing these to control others and harm your ‘enemies’ (other people!) is also effective.

It’s time to widen the discussion of all forms of abuses in Lamaism, and stop all the harm to innocents.
- 34
  
  Stardust on September 1, 2017 at 12:35 pm
  Reply
  
  ”Perhaps there is no healing in the confines of that which harmed them, and leaving is the only way for these wounded to heal, so passing judgment on them because they leave wounded to find healing elsewhere is misinformed and myopic. Why should they stay if they have been abused?”
  Absolutely spot on.
  
  ”Perpetrators who are of Tibetan blood, raised in the anachronistic, abusive monastery system obviously don’t understand that their behavior is reprehensible, so how do these teachers propose to re-train the lamas to not be abusive, and sexual predators, when it is built into the very fabric of Vajrayana Lamaism?”’
  
  It seems not so differnt in other buddhist groups though, like Triratna; with cult dynamics, distortions of Dharma and dysfunctional ethical norms build into the very fabric.
  I agree the damage of the obvious psychological abuse must not be underestimated, it might actually be experienced as much more traumatic then having been subjected to sexual misconduct.
35

Denial of harm is complicity in harm – Exposing Deeds of Darkness on August 17, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Reply

[…] A LETTER TO THE COLLEGE OF PUBLIC PRECEPTORS BY THE ARYALOKA SPIRITUAL VITALITY COUNCIL […]
36

Mark Dunlop’s Response to Sangharakshita’s February 2017 Memoir – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on September 2, 2017 at 7:30 pm
Reply

[…] A Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council […]
37

tenpel on May 12, 2018 at 12:06 am
Reply

For your general information

Two articles were taken down with respect to Triratna, “The NSPCC, the Triratna Buddhist Community and the Safety of Children” + the “NSPCC Opens Triratna Case” article. Details will be given soon and the comments (which contain very valuable and important information) will be provided via a PDF.

A new article about TBO and safeguarding on a talk Munisha gave just in Germany about safeguarding and Triratna will also be posted. I hope these tasks can be finished in the next 5 days.

For those who need to access the old articles – e.g. to search for certain details or information found in the comments, please use the wayback machine or web archive for the time being: https://web.archive.org

I apologise for any inconvenience. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
- 38
  
  tenpel on July 3, 2018 at 4:17 pm
  Reply
  
  UPDATE
  
  Two links were removed from the post which linked to the “The NSPCC, the Triratna Buddhist Community and the Safety of Children” and the “NSPCC Opens Triratna Case” posts under the headings of “See also” and “Update May 2017”.
  
  Both posts are still in a revision process which takes more time than initially thought. The revised posts will make clear why both posts have been taken down. We also need to revise the comments of those posts which we want to continue to provide via a PDF (one post hat about 500 comments and very useful information). The revision of the comments we have to make in order to avoid legal threats or a legal case.
39

Sangharakshita Obituary – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on December 4, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Reply

[…] A Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council 2017/05/04 […]

	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	tenpel on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Lena on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Mark Dunlop on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	Vincent Fletcher on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	Vincent Fletcher on The Clear Light of Kelsang Gya…
	tenpel on Expressions of Whiteness in Bu…

The Letter To The College of Public Preceptors By The Aryaloka Spiritual Vitality Council

APPENDIX I: Areas of Concern

APPENDIX II – Recommendations

See also

Update July 2018

Updates 2019

Updates 2020

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

How can I find a course or practitioner?

There are a number of concerns within the mindfulness community about the risks of rapid growth.

UPDATE