Continuing some of the issues brought up in "Psychosis, Stabbing, Secrecy & Death at a Neo-Buddhist University in Arizona" by Matthew Remski. Remski was a student of Michael Roach some years ago, and while he does not have first-hand knowledge of the death of Ian Thorson, I assume he does have direct knowledge of how Michael Roach teaches.
Toward the end of the article Remski writes, "All students of Roach have taken initiation into the Bodhisattva Vows, one of which explicitly forbids criticism of the clergy. The Brahma Net Sutra gives a definition of this major vow."
Does the Mahayana Brahma Net explicitly forbid criticism of the clergy? I don't claim to be a scholar of the Brahma Net, but there are some translations online, such as this one. Per this translation, it says one should not slander the clergy. That's very different.
Per Remski, Roach's version of this Bodhisattva Vow is --
"A disciple of the Buddha must not himself broadcast the misdeeds or infractions of Bodhisattva-clerics or Bodhisattva-laypersons, or of [ordinary] monks and nuns--nor encourage others to do so. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of discussing the offenses of the assembly. As a Buddha's disciple, whenever he hears evil persons, externalists or followers of the Two Vehicles speak of practices contrary to the Dharma or contrary to the precepts within the Buddhist community, he should instruct them with a compassionate mind and lead them to develop wholesome faith in the Mahayana. If instead, he discusses the faults and misdeeds that occur within the assembly, he commits a Parajika offense."
From the Mahayana Brahma Net (emphasis in the translation):
"A disciple of the Buddha must not, without cause and with evil intentions, slander virtuous people, such as Elder Masters, monks or nuns, kings, princes or other upright persons, saying that they have committed the Seven Cardinal Sins or broken the Ten Major Bodhisattva Precepts. He should be compassionate and filial and treat all virtuous people as if they were his father, mother, siblings or other close relatives. If instead, he slanders and harms them, he commits a secondary offense."
That's the closest thing I could find in the Brahma Net to Roach's vow. Now, it's possible Roach is going by a Tibetan version of the Brahma Net and I'm looking at a translation from Sanskrit, and this is an honest discrepancy. But I'm not seeing anything in the Brahma Net that says you can't criticize clergy. It says one cannot tell lies about them or criticize them with evil intentions.
Remski suggests that the prohibition on criticizing clergy is suppressing discussion of Ian Thorson's death by Roach's followers. I cannot speak to that. But let's look at this issue in the light of other unfortunate scandals in western Buddhism.
There's a natural reluctance to criticize our teachers, who are people we admire and who we believe to have more wisdom than we do. But when students are somehow intimidated from questioning or criticizing the teacher, look out for abuse.
One of the uglier examples is the famous story about the poet W. S. Merwin and the late Chogyam Trungpa. Merwin and his wife attended one of the Rinpoche's Colorado seminars, but declined to mix and mingle with the other attendees. On orders from Trungpa, his students broke into the Merwin's room, dragged them to where the group was partying, and stripped off their clothes.
Apparently the students couldn't bring themselves to say, "Look, Rinpoche, you've had too much to drink, and we're not going to do this. It's wrong." Come to think of it, the Rinpoche might have lived a bit longer if someone had established some boundaries for his behavior. I take it no one did.
Senior students, at the very least, need to feel empowered to take criticism and concerns to the teacher and also to speak openly about the teacher's behavior to each other. They shouldn't be made to feel guilty about this. If the discussions are honest, and no one has self-serving motives, then the Brahma Net precepts are not broken.
One of Matthew Remski's suggestions for Diamond Mountain is to remove Michael Roach from the Board of Directors. We're learning, from many experiences, that it is wise to keep the spiritual head of a dharma center answerable to a Board of Directors and not on it. This makes it easier for a board to discuss a teacher's behavior and possibly impose some limits on him if appropriate. I'm not saying that Roach is at fault in the death of Thorson, but keeping him separate from management couldn't hurt.
When I was a student at Zen Mountain Monastery years ago, the late Daido Loori himself decided he shouldn't be on the Board of Directors, and he was the founder of the monastery. He told us that he thought someone should have the authority to step in if he ever turned into Captain Queeg.
I say any teacher who sets himself up as being beyond criticism, or gives his students the impression they are doing something wrong if they question his judgments or behavior, is not really a very good teacher.
No comments:
Post a Comment