Genpe Roshi's resignation, moralism, responsibility, and growing up

I just heard about Genpo Roshi's decision to disrobe from the zen priesthood in the wake of "an affair of several years with one of his Dharma successors."

sweepingzen.com/2011/02/07/dennis-genpo-...bes-as-a-zen-priest/

I don't know much about Genpo beyond the fact that his aggressive marketing of Big Mind puts me off. But that aside, I don't like the precedent his resignation sets; that someone should resign his priesthood after being caught in an all-too-common human mistake. People are sometimes unfaithful, zen masters or not, often in spite of their best judgement. Biology and the urge to merge are powerful forces. The real hubris in my view is to imagine that "it could never happen to me." My wife and I talk about this a lot; better to assume that you are fallible, bring your partner into the discussion, and deliberately avoid situations that might get you into trouble than to blithely assume that you are too pure to succumb to temptation. I am committed to my wife and to being faithful to her. At the same time, I do not delude myself that I have overcome the human tendency to make foolish decisions; such self-delusion is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster.

(cnt'd below)

(cnt'd from above)

Of course, there is much more to this story than I know. Maybe Genpo was ready to move on anyway, maybe he really is some kind of monster, maybe he is tired of all the projection and moralism, maybe the White Plum Asanga was getting ready to throw him out anyway for some other reason... who knows? The discussion I'm interested in having is about the unrealistic expectations we have about other human beings, including and especially religious and spiritual leaders and our rigidity in applying standards to them that we would never apply to ourselves. It all seems so frankly juvenile to me and I do believe it is an American phenomenon above all, somehow related to our Protestant past. Interested to hear your views.

(cnt'd from above)

This is one of those places I feel we have some growing up to do as a culture (American, with our puritanical roots) and as a sangha (idealizing Buddhist leaders and denying their humanity). Yes, we should hold ourselves and each other accountable for ethical behavior, but no, we should not be so quick to judge anothers' human frailties. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," as the man said.

Another crucial component in this is responsibility; we would like to be able to trust religious and spiritual leaders to set examples of ethical behavior and above all to never take advantage of their position of power in the student/teacher relationship. The recent scandal in the Catholic Church is just one example of how the pendulum can swing so far toward protecting the offenders that innocent people, in this case children, are destroyed in the process.

So, I am looking for balance. Is it either/or, black or white? If child abusing priests should be banned forever from the priesthood (and I believe they should), does that also mean that two consenting adults who have an extramarital affair should be disgraced and ruined (I believe they should not). I'm concerned about the kind of venomous pile-on attack that comes every time someone in a position of power is exposed as a mere human being with flaws just like our own. I write this knowing full well that my comments will kick up yet another round of sanctimonious moralism and self-riteous zealotry. So be it; I think this is a conversation worth having.

(cnt'd below)

What's to converse about? I think you've highlighted the basic thing here. People like to have someone to project their idealizations onto, as well as having someone to project their shadows onto. It's really satisfying to get it all in one package. First I can put you up on a pedestal (resenting you for being superior to me even as I aspire to become so perfect), next I revel in the schadenfreude when you inevitably do something which contradicts my ideal projection. yay! now I can project my anti-ideal on you, and it's even more satisfying since you were so superior to me before and i always secretly suspected you couldn't really be so perfect.... aggggghhhh!

yeah, people need to grow up. including genpo most likely. but he's not my problem any more than he's my solution. know what I mean?

If I wanna see less interpersonal dissonance and more interpersonally meaningful and wholesome behavior in the world, there's only one thing to do

@ jhsaintonge:

Very nicely put, IMHO.

It seems to me that cheating on your wife is a very human act. But when it moves into the the arena of teacher/student the issue moves into the corruption of power. Genpo has done this before as well, and lost a sangha in Bar Harbor Maine earlier in his career.

It's also been revealed that he resigned, but I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that he was fired or run out on a rail. It's just as possible that his wife made him quit, which would make sense since he made his lover the vice abbot.

I think the problem is the power dynamic. As I ponder this, I wonder what would happen if we were to replace the word roshi with therapist?

"As I ponder this, I wonder what would happen if we were to replace the word roshi with therapist?" -Owen

In almost all cases, the therapist would lose his/her license and no longer be able to practice. And his/her reputation would follow them, so it would be nearly impossible to get licensed in any similar kind of professional practice.

People who go to see a psychotherapist are there because they can't fix a problem (or many problems) on their own. Therefore, they are by definition "vulnerable". It's unethical to use the therapeutic relationship as a springboard to sexual or emotional fulfillment at the expense of the vulnerable patient/client. This is very clearly stated in the ethics codes of all the major licensing boards.

The power differential is a huge issue. It makes "consent" a really tricky issue. It's tempting to adopt a metaphysics of "consenting adult individuals" with regard to defining freedom of choice. But, this doesn't really hold up in light of all the complex processing at work both inter- and intra-personally. I guess what I'm saying is that it's difficult to know whether this affair was clear of any type of abuse or manipulation. It's clear that he was deceiving his partner, but that in and of itself (in my opinion) shouldn't be grounds for termination of employment or impeachment. The fact that a student was involved leads me to think that it's not a bad idea for him to step down, at least for a time.

Yeah guys--- power, ok, good point. And it also seems to me that it behooves us to remember where his "power" came from. That was part of the projection of the community, no? Now, did he like to carry that projection? Probably. But who cares? Because he *wasn't* anyone's therapist.

Maybe the deeper point comes back to the issue of taking responsibility for ourselves, each one of us. If we want to have someone "out there" whether therapist or dharma teacher who is the "authority", well why do we want that (we humans, not we anyone in particular here. Or better yet.. "we" me!!)? Don't we want it... for when something goes wrong? (I do/did).

In other words, there's relating to a teacher/therapist as someone with some skills to help us emancipate ourselves from mental slavery cuz none but ourselves can free our minds (couldn't resist) and there's the therapist/teacher who is going to "do" something for us (or fail to...).

And this issue of autonomy vs. dependency goes for romantic relationships as well. Frankly, Genpo's wife doesn't 'own" him or he her. If they want to play by some rules that say "this is how we're gonna behave" then they better be damn clear as to why they're playing by those rules. Jealousy possessiveness and so on are also normal human problems. So is his wife the "victim" of infidelity? Was his lover the "victim" of his abuse of power? Was genpo the "victim" of a social more which oppressed his libido (LOL, this is fun)? What's really going on here?

In the case of a therapist/client, also, we're dealing with an asymmetrical relationship of a different order than the case of a teacher/student. Is that not obvious, or am I perhaps missing something?

"In the case of a therapist/client, also, we're dealing with an asymmetrical relationship of a different order than the case of a teacher/student. Is that not obvious, or am I perhaps missing something? "

I would say that in many ways, the student teacher relationship is even more intense than in a therapeutic context. If you go to a zen sesshin you will be immensely stressed and sleep deprived, in addition the entire community is built around deep trust of the teacher as a direct heir to the Buddha. A Roshi holds incredible power, the potential for abuse almost makes it too dangerous.
I watched my old community (zenstudies.org) basically disintegrate over similar issues. It was seriously unfun.

It seems that Genpo is still teaching, even though he resigned

WRT post #9, good points, Owen. Never under-estimate the power of community ethos.

EDIT: My pal Stuart Lachs would be proud.

www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen...ster_in_America.html

So on one hand there's this impersonal, non-human entity: an organization, or an office (funny hat/fancy robe) within that organization or hierarchy, some kind of a corporation or corporate function. There is damage done to the corporation/organization by some individual, and therefore that non-human entity spits out the individual. We're seeing this in Egypt right now, it's happening right now in political parties, religious organizations, and in the art cooperative on the next block. Some abstract entity's autoimmune system bearing down on a malfunction. This is basically not "real", not human reality, at least. Corporations of any kind are not human, they have an existence entirely of their own, and this is important to keep in mind. If they were human we would have to classify their behaviour as sociopathic (i.e. they eat each other and apart from that don't care for each other).

On the other hand there are real individual human beings causing each other harm, pain, suffering and so on.

So the situation really is this: there are real people who are hurting others and being hurt, right now, not far away at all, due to invented (non-real) things like the office of "roshi" or the corporation of "sangha"...

I used to think this was just an absurd joke, no really, for years I couldn't figure it out, except that it was funny nonsense, "They should just stop acting silly", until one day I realized that this actually causes a great deal of suffering to a lot of people, and not just because they decided to participate in this silly act. They didn't, and yet they are in pain because of it.

If someone cheats on their partner, there can be bad consequences for all involved. If they were an official in a corporation thus throwing a bad light on the corporation? How to explain the difference, in human terms?

Cheers,
Florian

www.bigmind.org/Home.html

Genpo's comments. From his own web site

@ Florian: great points. The distinction between the para-human institutional dynamics and the human aspects of the situation is well made. Do you think the rules and roles of romantic relationships falls into the same para-human category as corporations, sanghas and nation-states? I do.

@Owen: I hear you, but I still think the distinction is valid. A therapist/client relationship is predicated on the assumption that the client by definition is having trouble being autonomous and the therapist is going to help the client to become autonomous.

Yes there is a parallel to the student-teacher relationship, but the latter IMO really only happens when autonomous adult A (who may have psychological issues, but who is inclined to take responsibility for them) goes to autonomous adult B (about whom the same may apply) to learn spiritual practice. How is this in any way the same as dysfunctional adult A going to Adult B to learn how to take responsibility for their psychological issues and thereby become more autonomous?

Of course, insofar as a spiritual community is structured according to rules and roles which attribute "authority" to the teacher beyond the authority of knowing how to practice well, even to the point of "infallibility" in regards to making life-decisions for the community members, that's a dysfunctional community IMO and they should all, teachers and students, go get some good therapy or via some other means become autonomous adults who aren't looking to rules and roles to evade their own responsibility (for the decisions they make). I'm not saying that a spiritual community must be composed of people without issues... just that, to the extent that it's composed of folks who're seeking refuge from their issues in a "power dynamic" of rules and roles... it will always be prone to these sorts of disturbing events.

Ah just read your link chris... looks like Genpo's going into therapy.

My view is that most of the forms of human relationships are merely the results of the varieties of compounded conditions brought into being by the dictates of the organs and glands of human bodies. My response to my own past experience of these same dynamics is to eventually have become largely disinterested in having the modes of attention of my mindfulness dictated to by my glands unless it is absolutely necessary as in the cases of preventing hunger and fatigue. Similarly, my response is to not give any concern to the extent that glands govern the actions of others unless they want to get their glands onto mine in which case I inform them I'm simply not at all interested. Obviously this kind of exercise of mindfulness, dispassion and disinterest is not a typical choice of most people and just as obviously I don't have to care that it isn't a commonly adopted approach. I didn't become this way by slapping on a chastity belt or gritting my teeth with sexual frustration and repression at nights, it just kind of crept up on me, slowly and inexorably, like a comfortably worn out old pair of shoes.

So, while I don't think any exceptional abilities are required on my part to completely refrain from intimate relationships with all other people, I also don't think there is anything exceptional to be gained from refraining from these kind of relationships either. Life is just broadly simpler.

cont->

This is the only difference and it is a significant one. Beyond meeting my minimal requirements for food, exercise, hygiene and rest, I don't have to think, speak or act in any manner to achieve the ends of any other glandular processes, my own or those of anyone else. I have in the past worked to these other ends. I am aware of all that is necessarily involved in maintaining healthy and wholesome committed intimate relationships and aware of the various kinds of rewards that can be experienced in maintaining those efforts. Still, I prefer the simplicity of none and I am entirely and unwaveringly content in this without ever so much as a subtle hint of loneliness. I view the alternative, regardless of the various qualities of relationships, as simply added and unnecessary forms of suffering for myself and for others.

There is a basic functional interdependence between human beings and accompanying drives in regards to human mortality and human procreation that I think have to be acknowledged and respected as central to the continuance of the species. I'm not at all surprised to see peoples lives often primarily centered on answering to these concerns within the context of a spectrum of social institutions. I would on the other hand be very surprised if people with my given attitudes ever become visibly common. In that event I suppose I would start looking around in the middle of such a stoically reserved crowd for a Buddha somewhere! Personally I have no interest in my personal continuance or the continuance of the species or even in the continuance of any similar disinterest and experience no sense of loss in stepping out of the larger processes in their entirety. A part of my stepping out of the process is also abandoning all concern about whatever involvements other people chose to have or not, it's all none of my concern and there is nothing I ever have to think or say or do about any of it.

cont->

This attitude, complete disinterest, is one that is my own and has formed and persists independently of all other points of reference. It is, interestingly enough for my purposes, entirely and easily compatible with the training methodology as detailed in the Pali sutta and vinaya discourses. There is no reason whatsoever however that I or anyone else should expect that it would be reasonable for someone to suggest making either my given attitude or the strict expectations within the Pali Cannon's training system to serve as the basis for expectations or judgements in regards to the conduct of people in general. That the code of discipline imposed by the Buddha in his lifetime on his monks is rarely kept has never been the point as far as I'm concerned, rather that the standards are given there to aspire to if anyone is ever interested is the only thing that has ever interested me about the discourses about that kind of training. If Theravada laypeople want to criticize failed monks or zen lay people want to criticize zen priests that is their problem. I still don't care what any of them think.

cont->

If I maintained the vinaya to perfection would it be some kind of a big accomplishment socially? No. Quite to the contrary it would be more about abandoning societal involvements and societal norms. Should I make a big deal out of turning my back on relationships? No. It would be what I am interested in doing, primarily for my own benefit, so why should I give a crap if anyone else ever knows about my interest in it or in any maintenance of it or not? It is of no added value to anyone else, my maintaining that kind of discipline. The benefits are primarily mine and no one else should care if I prefer to be alone most of the time or not. Apart from whatever stress I am not causing others, I am contributing nothing else, so there is no point in taking on any air of superiority or maintaining any similar ******** about it. Clearly the entire world is as content to not give me any thought as I am willing to not give it any thought. A completely fair deal imho.

People can do whatever they like and they will be critiqued and judged as their various human societies likes. I don't concern myself with the choices of either and these others don't concern themselves with the likes of me. That I am mindful about my own thought speech and action in relation to my own given views and attitudes is all that ever concerns me. Apart from that I am entirely comfortable with the presence or absence of any and all that together fills up the world and have no stake in arguing about any of it being in any way different than it is. I think that healthy and wholesome relationships are not entirely uncommon and entirely possible for most people (largely regardless of their particular practices and philosophies) when they put the necessary skillful efforts into it.

cont->

I don't see what is to be gained societally by the lowering of social expectations except for the encouragement of still more indiscretions amongst those in positions of authority. I don't ever expect human behavior to necessarily meet any kinds of standards or to ever necessarily improve but I don't have any reasons to accept or reject, condone or condemn anyone's failings or shortcomings either, whether such failings or shortcomings are commonplace or not. I don't care what the pope does and I don't care what the zen pope does either. On the other hand, in the american context in particular, I probably prefer the tail chasing presidents to the war chasing presidents. So, if a part of making sure the american president gets the blow jobs he needs to keep the peace is making sure that american zen priests get the blow jobs they need, then everyone please go out today and blow a zen roshi for peace.
. .
O

I'd just like to say that I completely agree with Kenneth here and I'm very thankful he's posted this. This is very similar to the money issue in my mind. In terms of sexual issues, we lose too many effective teachers (and others, politicians, for example) to the process of public mea culpa about private matters between consenting adults. Worse still, it's has a chilling effect on the emerging talent. Who wants to do anything bold if some poorly chosen sex is all it takes to wipe it away?

I think we need to radically change the spiritual system so talented people can teach and--barring acts of actual sexual misconduct like harassment or force--and can have a private life, screw ups and all. Also, and still keep their jobs. I'm not sure what that change would look like, but I think at least the conversation is in order.

P.S I'm a licensed psychologist. Just to weigh in on that issue, I think the therapeutic is very different and isn't comparable in most ways.

@jhsaintonge are romantic relationships the same kind of entity as corporations and sanghas? No, I don't think so, not in the sense I was going on about. Corporation X will swallow people to fill in the people-shaped holes in its hierarchy, and it will eject people who don't work smoothly any more. It will try to displace or swallow corporation Y. Sangha K and Church L, country A, country B.... work much the same. The people change while the corporate entity continues. When one partner of a romantic relationship is replaced, it's definitely no longer the same relationship. When both are replaced.

@Nathan: it's the kind of tail-chasing absurdity you mention that makes me wary of any institution's claim for providing solutions to said tail-chasing absurdities: governments claiming to provide peace, religious groups claiming to provide happiness, toy-producing companies claiming to provide satisfaction and so on. On the other hand, they can be a stepping stone, so why not try to make it a good one where one doesn't sprain an ankle? There is no refuge to be found in institutions, but that doesn't mean we should have bad institutions.

@mdaf30 but what is consent (as in "consenting adults"), and who are the consenters? Does the priest's family consent with his escapade? Does his parish? Does his mistress - how much weight does his position have? The more public a figure, the more obvious the interconnectedness.

Sex and power are a strange mix, and this stuff does strange things to those who use it.

cont ->

I'm in a Judo club. We have adults and underage judoka, trainers and trainees, even a bit of management, and ordinary members. We need trainers, they can be hard to find, but we wouldn't want them to exploit the kids, or seduce club members. On the other hand, we wouldn't want them to lose their reputation on groundless accusations - this stuff sticks, and they'd never be able to give training again even if proven innocent. So this is tricky business, even with something as concrete as a sport, with tangible results and so on: you either win or you don't; you're in good shape or you're not, and so on. But with religion in the mix... oh my.

In our club, we've partnered with a specialist institution for prevention of sexual exploitation. These people have a lot of experience in dealing with this fiddly stuff, legal, psychological, organizational and so on, leaving us to play our sport, with the knowledge that we can always call for help when a difficult situation crops up. This is a pretty good set-up in my opinion, and it has, in the past, served to reduce suffering on *all* sides, which is pretty amazing, I feel. There are quite a few religious organizations who rely on their services, as well.

Some problems, we don't have to solve all on our own, and it's just sensible to request help when help is available.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian, you can call me Jake
I see what you're getting at now. I was pointing more to the arbitrary/socially constructed nature of monogamy (or other conventional romantic arrangements). Rules and roles. And I was seeing an analogy between large scale and small scale institutions in that the rules and roles can be for conveniences sake on a completely straightforward pragmatic level or for more psychological reasons. I.e., people can engage in monogamy because they are jealous and possessive (and not necessarily in some conventionally-considered pathological way like the husband in Sleeping With the Enemy) and they engage in monogamy so that they will never have to deal with the implications of jealousy and possesiveness. So they/we seek refuge from difficult emotions in social arrangements which are constructed to avoid pushing those buttons.

The problem is that we all have other buttons, as Nathan points out. And not just lust; one can (seems universal, deny it if you wish!) simply "be in love" or "be attracted romantically" to more than one person at a time. So there is a conflict. Genpo says:
"With great humility I will continue to work on my own shadows and deeply rooted patterns that have led me to miss the mark of being a moral and ethical person and a decent human being".
(con't)