The subjectivity of "groping"

Tweet du 16/12/2020

In the discussions about abuse and violence in Buddhism on social networks, different approaches can be distinguished. One can assume that all those participating in the discussions are interested in Buddhism. Some may have been deeply involved in Buddhism for a long or short time, others may have a looser interest in Buddhism, most will have frequently visited Buddhist centers for some time.

As with many other human organisations, once one is deeper and longer involved in it, the precautions taken with outsiders, sympathizers and visitors (even regular ones) are dropped, and one will get a more direct taste of its workings and of what goes on behind the scenes. “Sunday Buddhists” do not experience the same “Buddhism” as those in close everyday contact with a Buddhist organisation. And I am not even considering those centers whose gurus and their close circles specialise in the “smashing of concepts” and/or the “crushing of egos”. In the context of this blog, I will prefer to talk about the guru and his (too few exceptions, to use another possessive pronoun) circles, since a man on his own doesn’t have any authority. I will use the word “Gurukula”. The experience of “Sunday Buddhists” is therefore necessarily more shallow than the one of those who were sitting at the first rank every day and got a real taste of it. Their experiences don’t compare, and yet in many discussions this aspect is not often taken into account. It is sometimes simply one “Sunday” opinion against a more informed opinion.

Among those who have been around for a longer period, there are those who may have never witnessed any harassment, violence and abuse[1] and who are happy with the Gurukula. They probably have taken on responsibilities themselves and play an active role in the Gurukula. Others may have witnessed such incidents, but consider these are part of “growing up” spiritually. They may or may not consider that those undergoing the abuse knew what they were getting into, and that the teacher was acting like this in the student’s spiritual interest. They too may have taken on a role in the Gurukula.

Some may have been disillusioned early on, simply because the Gurukula thing wasn’t their cup of tea, or because they witnessed things that didn’t agree with them. Some of those may even have decided to stay in the Gurukula for various reasons and put up with the unpleasant stuff. Others may have left for various reasons. Anyone who follows Buddhist centers for a while will notice a huge turnover of visitors, guests and Sunday Buddhists. Less old faces and always many new faces. A Gurukula has rules that are not really written down somewhere, but the Guru is its center and ultimate authority. Contacts with Buddhist Gurukula members are far more frequent than direct contacts with the Guru. A Gurukula has many unspoken rules, and loyalty towards the Guru and the Gurukula are definitely the top ones.

Coming back to the discussions about abuse and violence in Buddhism on social networks, there are many participants with various motives, but those who are involved with a Gurukula will mostly adopt positions in favour of Gurukula rules. They see a purpose in Gurukula rules and behaviour, and will defend these by making as few concessions as possible. They don’t see any problem with the Gurukula approach in itself, on the contrary. There may be some individuals that don’t live by its rules, and who abuse their power. Those individuals may be sacrificed, shamed, convicted etc. in order to save and stick to the Gurukula approach. Who dies if the Gurukula live?

If one ignores the Gurukula approach and its huge potential for psychological suffering, peer pressure, harassment, “ego-crushing” and “concept-smashing”, and possibly damage control, and DARVO techniques, then one will certainly misjudge the gravity of some “allegations”.

I happened to read the following tweet by the German monk Tenzin Peljor, responsible for the website Diffi-Cult (Controversy Blog), reacting to a tweet by Buddhist Leaks run by a group of survivors of abuse in Buddhist circles. Tenzin Peljor took offense at the qualification of Dagri Rinpoche as a predator.

“the perpetrator is a teacher and a predator (the allegations were in all cases groping). since i've worked many years with criminals I chose to see criminals as human beings. i don’t call them criminals but human beings who have done crimes. it seems we two have diff. approaches”

If I get it right, the position of Tenzin Peljor and of Diffi-Cult wants to be a consensual one. Along the lines of making a distinction between the man or the artist and his work. According to that point of view teachers like Sogyal, Trungpa, Sakyong Mipham, Robert Spatz (Lama Kunzang Dorje) etc. (the list is too long) ought not only to be remembered for their abuse, but also for the good things they did. Individuals may make mistakes, but the Gurukula system is infallible and needs to be defended by all means. In the case of Dagri Rinpoche, the survivors first got the full DARVO treatment, Zopa Rinpoche taking the lead[2]. After investigations, Zopa Rinpoche’s FPMT Inc. concluded “Dagri Rinpoche did engage in a pattern of intentional and inappropriate sexual behavior that persisted over many years towards women who were in his company due to his position as a trusted incarnate lama and teacher”. Some of the women were ordained nuns, and thus also affiliated with a Gurukula and its rules.

In the above tweet Tenzin Peljor writes “the perpetrator is a teacher and a predator (the allegations were in all cases groping)”. I read this as an attempt to limit the abuse to “groping”. One may hope that the judge will be able to appreciate the difference between the “groping” of a passager on a bus or a plane..., and the abuse by a Gurukula leader of female Gurukula members (including ordained nuns), where the survivors are confronted with a full DARVO treatment by the other Gurukula members and lineage hierarchs.

MàJ 18122020 Also see the article "Hostile Takeover" by Rob Hogendoorn on the rather hostile reception on Diffi-Cult of his former article Knave or Fool? The Dalai Lama and Shōkō Asahara Affair Revisited.

***

[1] Pema Chodron about her teacher Chogyam Trungpa : « He said that the job of a teacher is to insult you, insult your ego. »
" [Chogyam Trungpa] said, well, the problem with Merwin — this was several years ago — he said, Merwin’s problem was vanity. He said, I wanted to deal with him by opening myself up to him completely, by putting aside all barriers. “It was a gamble.” he said. So I said, was it a mistake? He said, “Nope.” So then I thought, if it was a gamble that didn’t work, why wasn’t it a mistake? Well, now all the students have to think about it —so it serves as an example, and a terror. But then I said, “What if the outside world hears about this, won’t there be a big scandal?” And Trungpa said, “Well, don’t be amazed to find that actually the whole teaching is simply emptiness and meekness.” When the Party’s Over, interview avec Allen Ginsberg dans Boulder Monthly, mars 1979.

[2] "From my understanding, in my view and according to my mind, Dagri Rinpoche is a very positive, holy being—definitely not an ordinary person."

"Therefore, I want to tell the students who have received initiations and teachings from Dagri Rinpoche that you should definitely one hundred percent rejoice, no matter what the world says, no matter if some people criticize him.'

“We will have to achieve enlightenment in order to investigate the beginningless rebirths of Dagri Rinpoche. We have to be enlightened; otherwise, we can’t investigate. This is my logic.”

“ I want to say that I am deeply sorry about all the people who got hurt from Rinpoche’s holy actions.”

Lama Zopa Rinpoche’s Advice to Students of Dagri Rinpoche