Diffi.Cult

I discovered Tenzin Peljor’s blog (buddhism-controversy-blog, Diffi.Cult) in the aftermath of the Sogyal Lakar/Rigpa affair in summer 2017, as one of the websites where (ex-)students having difficulties with the cultish aspects of the communities they were involved in could express their concerns and exchange with others.

Tenzin Peljor being a fully ordained Gelukpa monk (by the Dalaï-Lama), criticism of Tibetan Buddhism and of its teachers is rather limited, in the sense that the consensus of the publications, exchanges and moderation seems to be one going into the direction of furthering the relations with Tibetan Buddhism and its teachers on an as-is basis, sometimes even with teachers that allegedly abused students, and/or with their continuing communities.

“Realising gradually that Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan culture are extremely complex and have far more difficult issues than the Shugden controversy, a year after I posted an critical post about the silence of Tibetan Buddhists with respect to the abuse allegations against Sogyal Lakar in March 2012, Sogyal Rinpoche and the Silence of the Tibetan Buddhist Community and the Dalai Lama, I renamed this blog in July 2013 to http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com and the title “Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues”.” (Diffi.Cult, About section)

One generally shared approach of contributors to Diffi.Cult could be resumed under the motto “separate the artist from his/her work”, i.e. the work can be the work of genius, but the artist may be clad with issues. One could add to this motto “separate the leader from his/her organisation”. The leader may be compromised, but his/her organisation can continue just like before, with some minor changes, or perhaps a deontology charter and internal psychological help providers. Another fixed idea seems to be that one ought to consider both the bad and good things a teacher does/did, even if the bad things include the recurrent abuse of students. Nobody is perfect. Some students may have been abused, but many other students (a "silent majority"?) perhaps found “benefit” in the teachings of compromised teachers. A concrete consequence of the latter idea is that when discussing compromised teachers, one should not forget they may have benefited many.

When I became aware of this blog (end 2017), there were sometimes vivid discussions, in which sometimes victims/survivors participated. Some of them really couldn’t (trauma triggers) / didn’t want to continue with Tibetan Buddhism, thereby going against the general consensus (see above). These voices seem to have died out in the more recent years. The authors of Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism (Mary Finnigan and Rob Hogendoorn) also sometimes participated in these discussions, but they too have disappeared after often heated exchanges. Once the more critical voices of TB had left this forum, the general consensus thickened. The only heated discussions now are with let’s call them loyalist TB’s, who may blame Tenzin Peljor and guest writer Joanne Clark for these topics to be even discussed (breaking the silence) and for allowing allegations against their Tibetan teachers to be put forward and to get attention.

The Diffi.Cult website seemed to want to take a sort of middle position between two fires (critical and loyalist). With the disappearance of the more critical voices and the multiplication of allegations against Tibetan teachers, sometimes major ones, the fire now merely seems to come from the loyalist side. If Diffi.Cult wants to stick to a middle position, the repeated loyalist attacks could have as a result to pull the general consensus a bit more to the loyalist side, in the absence of the once more critical voices.

It seems to me that this is what’s happening with the publication of a guest post by Joanne Clark, “A Disheartening Article: Stuart Lachs & Rob Hogendoorn on the Dalai Lama”. The two authors of this critical article on the Dalaï-Lama, which both Joanne Clark and Tenzin Peljor admit not having read in its entirety[1], are reproved for not having considered “any spiritual dimension that might have informed the Dalai Lama’s motivations and actions[2]” in their article, even though his spiritual qualities are well known and very often repeated in the media without the negative counterparts. No objection there it seems. There also is such a thing as a reading grid, to make certain things more apparent that would otherwise be left out.  

Tenzin Peljor writes :

“Spiritual values, which guide the Dalai Lama’s verbal and bodily actions, are easily overlooked and cannot be seen and understood by people who look on him from a merely mundane-political perspective. Looking through a black-and-white ideological lens on a complex and very colourful figure like the Dalai Lama can only taint one’s examinations and conclusions.”

The Dalaï-lama is both an individual (Tenzin Gyamtso) and an institution with an Office. The only Dalaï-Lama most Westerners, including Western Tibetan Buddhists, have access to is the Dalaï-Lama as the institution, who may choose to communicate in very personal pleasant and human ways, like any celebrity. We don’t know Tenzin Gyamtso’s spiritual dimension behind the motivations and actions of the Dalaï-Lama, and we don’t have to know. But he seems like a warm person.

All we can know and can go by are his words, actions … and also the things the Dalaï-Lama keeps silent on and doesn’t act upon.

Joanne Clark takes issue with the authors’ coldish treatment of the Dalaï-Lama’s siding with Thatcher and Bush against Augusto Pinochet’s extradition for trial on charges of human rights violations, in which the genuine compassion of the individual behind the Dalaï-lama[3] may have been overlooked. I wouldn’t be surprised that even among those who wanted Pinochet judged for his crimes some may also have had a “spiritual dimension” and felt compassion for the dictator, but that didn’t stop them from claiming justice for the victims. If Pinochet deserved our compassion in action, what other criminals and dictators deserve for the world to speak out for them and to not trial them? If one wants to claim compassion for one individual, albeit a dictator, why not claim compassion and forgiveness for all? What made the case of Pinochet so special?

In the discussion that follows the guest post, Joanne Clark (an ex-disciple of Sogyal Lakar) goes back to the Sogyal Lakar case, and specifically to Mary Finnegan’s and Rob Hogendoorn’s book Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism, in order to set some things straight in order “to keep up a spirit of staying close to facts and truth as we know them”. 

I will spare you the details, but my point here is that if one wants victims and survivors of Buddhist cults or cultish organisations to speak out, it would be good to listen to what they have to say, without distributing compassion points to some and decredibilising others. The same goes for well informed and researched articles with a critical reading grid.

The head of the Sauvé report on abuse by the French Catholic Church talked about the “cruel indifference” of the Church until 2000. The report had been commissioned by the French conference of bishops (not the pope or a pope, but men of good will one could say) three years ago. No matter whether it was out of “compassion” or the Church’s own interest. The damning report is there and hopefully it will lead to concrete measures. The Dalaï-Lama, filled to the brim with compassion (who knows), didn’t take any action regarding abuse (East and West) in Tibetan Buddhism. Loyalist Buddhists like to point out this is because of his lack of power[4], that the Dalaï-Lama is not a pope, that the abuse of Western students takes merely place in the West and is therefore something for Westerners to deal with. In that case, who is to deal with the abuse taking place in and outside TB monasteries by members of the Sangha in India and elsewhere?

In spite of not being the Tibetan Buddhist pope, the Dalaï-Lama met in 2018 with a delegation of Western victims/survivors and promised them he would put the topic on the agenda of the next meeting between Tibetan religious leaders. For lack of a pope, a decision by all Tibetan religious leaders would have looked pretty hopeful. But the meeting was postponed and even though other meetings did take place (Covid helping), this topic has sine dei disappeared from the agenda, regardless of the Dalaï-Lama’s or the other Tibetan hierarchs’ spiritual dimension.

I am not sure that criticizing those who criticize the Dalaï-Lama and Tibetan Buddhism (including for their previous works on Sogyal...)  and trying to find excuses for the lack of action regarding abuse (“cruel indifference”) will help making victims and survivors feel safe and understood and more critical voices feel welcome on Diffi.Cult.

For the thorough research (whether one likes the outcome or not) by Stuart Lachs & Rob Hogendoorn: 

‘Not The Tibetan Way’: The Dalai Lama’s Realpolitik Concerning Abusive Teachers

For disheartening blogs (in French) :

Tentative de clarification 30 septembre 2018
Ce n'est pas une coutume tibétaine... 27 avril 2021
"C'est dur d'être aimé par les cons" 3 décembre 2020
Les racines néolibérales de la compassiologie 10 décembre 2020   

MàJ 24102021 Recommended read: Hostile Takeover by Rob Hogendoorn.

 

***

[1] ‘I have a confession. I have not investigated this entire article line by line, nor checked all the sources, primarily because most of them are very difficult to access. Doing so would demand a great investment of time and stamina—and I have seen enough distortion in the sourcing and enough of the non-contextual approach to their evidence and argument to distrust the authors’ conclusions.’ Joanne Clark
'So far I didn’t read the article by Rob and Stuart in all its details. (…) After having glanced through Stuart’s and Rob’s article, I agree with Joanne, the complex spiritual and cultural motivations, intentions and values the Dalai Lama holds and is committed to as a Buddhist monk and as a deep admirer and follower of the altruistic Bodhisattva path – which guide his mental, verbal and physical actions – seem to have been ignored in this article.’ Tenzin Peljor

[2] “Any spiritual dimension that might have informed the Dalai Lama’s motivations and actions are sadly not considered in this article. That is a big missing piece in their case in my opinion.”

[3] "in the Pinochet case, as an individual, now old," it might be best to forgive him, the Nobel laureate told reporters in Santiago. "I think forgiveness is important, but forgiveness does not mean to forget about what happened." CBC News

[4] “Anyone who has followed the Dalai Lama and understands the history and culture and religious significance of Tibetan lineages and power dynamics would know that such a provocative suggestion (particularly in 1989)—asking if he would “accept a position as head of all the lineages, like a pope”—would likely trigger a strong reaction from him, a need to quickly quell such a suggestion. His Holiness’ response must be viewed within that context, with that powerful nuance—which is a different perspective than if we thought the context was the much milder, non-provocative one created by Lachs and Hogendoorn.”