On Loyalists and "Criticalists"

In my blog on Diffi.Cult I made a distinction between what I called “loyalist” TB’s and “critical voices” (not “criticalists”, I didn’t use that term). In my blog, the “loyalists” are those who defend Tibetan masters (in spite of the allegations and/or facts) and Tibetan Buddhism on an as-is basis, and may contribute to the silence and denial by ostracizing and criticizing or credentialing critical voices.

Here’s just a quick and dirty brainstorming in blogging style, it’s not an “article”, like none of my blogs are. I prefer to answer here rather than on Twitter where I can’t develop my arguments as I would like to (limited number of signs).

The “critical voices” are not critical for the sake of it. They may be victims/survivors of abusing lama’s and their communities, and those supporting victims/survivors by participating on forums, writing articles, books, blogs, etc. Other “critical voices” may be journalists, academics (buddhologists, tibetologists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc.) who may write directly or indirectly on the topic of abuse in (Tibetan) Buddhist communities with more distance and objectivity.

The “critical voice” of victims/survivors may not be intentionally critical. It’s their allegations that are already implicitly critical because they go against the (until recently) generally accepted positive image of TB lama’s and their institutions in general and that of the Dalaï-Lama in particular, including in the media and social networks.

In order to be audible the “critical voice” of victims/survivors first has to overcome the spiritual and psychological barrier of the victim/survivor’s beliefs, engagement, shame, fear, etc. Once the victim/survivor makes the allegations public in their community, the “critical voice” has to overcome the first “loyalist” barrier. How will the community react to the allegations? The victim/survivor may be the object of all sorts of pressure, including exclusion from the community (among which their friends). If the community doesn’t want to acknowledge what the “critical voice” has to say, and the victim/survivor still wants it to be heard and acknowledged, it will have to go public (“make public!”) outside of the community. I am not talking here about clearly criminal acts, where other barriers will have to be overcome.

If a victim/survivor goes public (as the Dalaï-Lama advises them), then they will become a victim/survivor in the public eye, quite a barrier to cross… The “critical voice” then even exposes itself to charges of slander etc. “Loyalist” Buddhists will do their best to decredibilise or reduce the effect of the “critical voice”. They may attribute all sorts of excessive emotions (anger, resentment, jealousy, etc.) to the victim/survivor and go as far as to call the victim/survivor a mentally ill person (almost a classic). They may put forward all the good done by the lama against whom allegations have been brought forward (“But he’s a saint”[1]).

Sometimes, the goodwill of a “great teacher”, built over many years, may be very powerful, and have public opinion on its side. Sogyal Lakar had celebrities, politicians, the Dalaï-Lama etc. supporting (=implicitly endorsing) his activity.

Considering the difficulty of often pretty lonely “critical voices” to be heard and acknowledged and the relatively great ease of following a “loyalist” Buddhist line, if one wants to offer/be a support to the “critical voice” of victims/survivors, one may have to give some priority to “critical voices”, so at least they can be heard, and the readers may reflect on their own on what is said. Instead of yet pulling up another barrier of “objectivity” of a middle position: we listen to the “critical voice” of the victim/survivor (that had to overcome many barriers), but we also listen to what the “loyalist” Buddhist voice has to say: the generally accepted positive image of TB and the Dalaï-Lama, repeated over and over again in the media and on social networks.

If the “critical voice” is heard and acknowledged, it will cause “a scandal”, and there will be debate, perhaps action, perhaps improvement… If the “loyalist” voice is followed, then the “critical voice” disappears in thin air, the victim/survivor will be stigmatised, excluded etc., and future victims/survivors will be dissuaded from making their “critical voice” heard.

What is the advantage of “objectivity” in this domain and what are the advantages of listening to “critical voices”? Does Buddhism want its adepts to think and listen to “critical voices” or to simply follow the party line with business as usual?

***

[1] “ I want to say that I am deeply sorry about all the people who got hurt from Rinpoche’s holy actions.”
“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.”
Letters by Zöpa Rinpoché in support of Dagri Rinpoche.