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

Thanks for the additional info, Vince.

To the point about rules and such, there are some companies and other institutions who have adopted what is called a "whistleblower policy." This means that there is a neutral third party (Florian said this part already) that stands ready to help someone who feels they've been wronged or who wants to report that someone else has been wronged. Such policies also protect the whistleblower from retribution by those in power (who are usually the people having the whistle blown at their behavior). The assumption is that someone has abused power and/or influence and that such behavior will not be reported and rooted out unless the people who report it can do so with some kind of protection.

Ethics in organizations both large and small is something that is not thought about anywhere near enough, IMHO. Seldom does an organization of any kind actually adopt a thoughtful, proactive stance on these matters. Hooray for those that do, like Spirit Rock and Florian's martial arts club.

Maybe there isn't much to add here, but here is how I see it:

1. He promised to be faithful to his wife and he wasn't.
2. He promised to uphold certain eithical standards through his monastiic vows and he didn't.
3. He should have understood that as a spiritual leader he owed a special duty to avoid polluting his teacher-student relationships with those who placed their faith him, and he either didn't understand or couldn't live up to this understanding.

Therefore, I think it is not only perfectly reasonable that he resigned, I think it was the only honorable course of action. I also think it is perfectly appropriate for others (his fellow teachers, students, and other Buddhist obsevers, i.e., you and me) to question the value of his instruction, the level of personal transformation he has undergone, and his ability to help others achieve their personal transformation goals.

Is it really to much too ask that spiritual teachers uphold the most basic of ethical standards that non-spiritual people are expected to uphold?

By the way, I didn't see anyone mention this factoid, but one of the reasons he may have had no choice was to resign is that he is a Dharma Heir of Maezumi-roshi, who had his own unfortunate history with infidelity. See internet blurb below:

1983 was a tumultuous year for Maezumi-roshi and the ZCLA. It was a year marked by sexual allegations leveled at the teacher. Some in the sangha began to also express concern about Maezumi's drinking, resulting in Maezumi publically admitting he was alcoholic and entering treatment. The events included revelations that he had an intimate affair with one of his female Dharma heirs (Jan Chozen Bays)'”an affair which resulted in the breakup of his marriage as well as hers. The distress of these events caused many students to leave ZCLA, and the center almost closed its doors during this period. In the wake ZCLA sought the counsel of outside mediators and also implemented institutional reforms aimed at addressing such problems were they ever to occur again.
Of the entire ordeal, longtime student John Daishin Buksbazen has stated, ''¦he was a great teacher with unresolved issues. It knocked the idea of the perfect guru into a cocked hat.' On May 15, 1995, at age 64, Maezumi-roshi drowned in his bathtub in the early morning after a night of drinking'”despite having reportedly abstained from alcohol in the preceding years.

@Jake: well, from a very simple, what-leads-to-what point of view, it's obvious to me that more people get upset when a priest (with a title and position and so on) has an affair than when some layperson has an affair.

I don't think that when "growing up" regarding this state of affairs it is at all exhaustive to say that these issues are imaginary and thus can't have any effect.

Rather, we have to gain an understanding how having or not having these imaginary, conventional attributes can lead to people physically reacting differently (such as in shedding tears of frustration if a priest is caught screwing around, and shrugging if some layman does exactly the same thing). Projection probably plays a large role - but then, what is projection, exactly? Isn't it imaginary, too?

Cheers,
Florian

"Is it really to much too ask that spiritual teachers uphold the most basic of ethical standards that non-spiritual people are expected to uphold?"

My personal answer to that question is no, it's not too much. We should expect people in positions of trust and authority to uphold their promises, vows and not violate ethical standards of behavior. On the other hand, we shouldn't be too surprised when they fall because they're human beings and there's no way out of that box unless we die, and maybe net even then

So as people and institutions I think we should be ever-so -slightly skeptical, realizing the nature of these things.

My hope in starting this thread was to explore the issue of social maturity. Not Genpo's social maturity, necessarily, but our own.

Robert Kegan is one of the great theorists in this area and his ideas are summarized in this wonderful article by Mark Dombeck:

bit.ly/hiKhts

Kegan has established a developmental hierarchy of social maturity. We all start out little and get bigger. Here is the sequence as summarized by Dombeck (you get more mature as you move down the list, beginning with Incorporative):

Incorporative
Impulsive
Imperial
Interpersonal
Institutional
InterIndividual

Here is an excerpt from Dombeck's comments:

"A person who has achieved InterIndividual social maturity is able to hold both mainstream and counter-cultural value systems in mind at the same time, and to see the problem of draft dodging from both perspectives. This sort of dual-vision will appear to be the worst kind of wishy-washiness and flip-floppery to someone stuck in a conventional Institutional mindset and maturity level. However, if you are following the progression of social maturity states, and how one states' embedded subjective view becomes something which is seem objectively alongside other points of view as social maturity progresses, you will see that such dual-vision is indeed the logical next step; what a more socially mature sort of human being might look like."

Also:

"Just because we can use Kegan's theory to explain why people act like jerks, doesn't for a second excuse jerky behavior."

The article is eminently worth reading and may provide a framework upon which to continue this discussion. The main takeaway here in my view is that as long as we are still talking about how outrageous Genpo's behavior is, we are missing a much more interesting discussion about our own social maturity.

Thanks for posting that link Kenneth. I think it's imperative that humans begin to appreciate this issue as so many of our global and local crises right now can be skillfully illuminated by taking into account

1) sociology (as in institutional dynamics, whether of macro levels as in Florian's examples or on more micro levels as I've been suggesting such as family, sangha and so on)
and
2) developmental psychology insofar as it offers insights into individuals' changing relationships with these sociological dynamics (from being unaware of them, through being embedded in them, into being relatively autonomous humans capable of post-conventional autonomy and relationship-- interindividual in Kegan's scheme).

Throwing tomatoes at Merzel or excusing his behavior are both sort of beside the point of this thread in my understanding. An autonomous individual can learn meditation techniques and gain extremely useful insights from narcissistic jerks, and socially immature people with a strong need to conform/rebel can consistently relate to their "leaders" in ways that make narcissism a very functional option for the latter.

"@Jake: well, from a very simple, what-leads-to-what point of view, it's obvious to me that more people get upset when a priest (with a title and position and so on) has an affair than when some layperson has an affair.

I don't think that when "growing up" regarding this state of affairs it is at all exhaustive to say that these issues are imaginary and thus can't have any effect.
"

We seem to be saying the same thing, Florian!
"Rather, we have to gain an understanding how having or not having these imaginary, conventional attributes can lead to people physically reacting differently (such as in shedding tears of frustration if a priest is caught screwing around, and shrugging if some layman does exactly the same thing). Projection probably plays a large role - but then, what is projection, exactly? Isn't it imaginary, too?"--Florian

Do you percieve me to be saying something different from what you are saying in this quote, or am I entirely mis-percieving that you seem to think we disagree? I'm leaning to the latter as it's notoriously tricky to communicate on a text only forum, and you may be simply re-stating my point in your own words while I meanwhile mis-detect a note of disagreement in your responses to me
I am striving to explain what I see as a key dynamic in "why" we humans react to such imaginary stuff as we do. In this case I'm drawing attention to the interface of sociology and developmental psychology in order to do so.

Brad Warner has posted a slightly different take on this whole Genpo Roshi fiasco. I think he makes some good points. here's the link:

www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/disrobing-genpo--brad-warner/

If I could jump in,

I appreciate what Kenneth is pointing to. We are all fallible. I get that. However, I have a different opinion about Genpo's resignation. I understand that I know very little about the situation. Regardless, I think his resignation sets a great precedent. What we need to do is look at this in the context of American Zen. The American Zen community has been plagued by Roshi's who participated in this kind of activity--often (it would seem) to a much greater extent than Genpo. My understanding is that Zen transmission is permanent. No take backs. Many of the teachers caught in these scandals are unwilling to admit fault. If they were expelled from their communities it was kicking and screaming. In the case of Baker Roshi, I am under the impression came back to the sangha after his expulsion and attempted to stage a coupe. Sleeping with students is wrong. Maybe its my Christian upbringing--but I don't see any grey area here. It's an abuse of spiritual authority--whether they be a catholic priest or a Zen Roshi. Even though I have never been a big Genpo fan--I support his decision. (Assuming it was his decision)

Also: I think the Spirit Rock guidelines are very reasonable expectations from teachers.

Word!

All right, let me see if I can redirect this a bit. Genpo's situation, although very real and painful for him, his family, and his community, is only an abstraction for those of us who are not part of that scene. For us, in this thread, Genpo's resignation is just the impetus to explore something that really does matter to each of us every day of our lives. I'm talking about emotional and social maturity. If you have posted to this thread and your name is not Jake or Mark, I'm not sure you have really grokked what I am pointing to. That is not your fault. It may well be mine for not communicating better.

Here's my thesis: Robert Kegan is right. There is a hierarchy of social maturity. It is not a fixed situation; you can move up the ladder of understanding if you apply yourself to that end. This Genpo scandal is an opportunity for each of us to "turn the light around." Rather than an opinion poll about who thinks what about Genpo, this thread can be a catalyst for each of us to find out where we may be stuck. This is how growth happens, and in this case the hoped-for result is that each of us can take another step up the ladder toward social maturity. First, if you have not yet read the Dombeck article, why not take a minute to read it now? It is well worth the trouble, IMHO.

bit.ly/hiKhts

Now try to place yourself on Kegan's map. If you find yourself feeling righteous indignation about the Genpo affair, where might that place you on the hierarchy? Now, forget about Genpo and look at yourself. Slowly, patiently. What is it about this matter that has you stirred up? Is there some part of yourself that you would rather not know about? How is Genpo other than you? Do you feel absolutely certain that you could never violate your own code of ethics or that of your community? I am not excusing Genpo. I am asking you to look inward rather than outward. There is gold in there.

"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. "

Hi Ken

For me, your sense of understanding & forgiveness is fine but, at least in religion, the precepts about maintaining appropriate sexual conduct are also their for lay people. There is a realistic expectation that lay people are able to abide by such precepts.

It follows, for priests, monks & Dharma teachers, there is a higher expectation. Priests & monks are positions of leadership, trustworthiness and safety.

In secular society, people holding positions such as CEOs of business corporations, doctors, teachers, etc, have lost their jobs due to inappropriate sexual relations.

The Bible realisically states: "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly". (James 3:1)

Warm regards

DD

The point about the importance of skillful behavior and the importance of consequences for one's actions has been made here many times already. No one is arguing against that point, so let's go deeper. I am particularly interested in what happens when we stop moralizing for a moment and look at ourselves. What is really going on in here? Notice the righteous glee we feel as we take down the big man. But what is seldom acknowledged is that these religious leaders are big, flabby, slow moving targets. It's like shooting fish in a barrel; there's hardly any sport in it at all. All we have to do to destroy a religious leader is prove that he's just as flawed as the rest of us. Brad Warner, who so thoroughly castigates Genpo in his latest blog, has, as far as I know, made a career of criticizing Genpo. The attacks on Genpo seem to be Warner's primary claim to fame. And yet I am not seeing a lot of maturity or depth of character from Warner. Let's try to do better.

Consider for a moment that your ideas and mores are completely conditioned by your experiences and the culture you find yourself in. Not so long ago, a black preacher in the US would have been fired for having sex with a white woman, whether she was part of his congregation or not. Nowadays, that kind of "morality," which was so clearly "right" for the people who embraced it at the time would be seen by most of us as tragically misguided. Yet the people who rode that teacher out of town on a rail would not have been able to consider any other point of view.

Look at your own mind in this moment. Do you believe your own thoughts? Why on earth would you do that? To return to a theme that was introduced earlier in this thread, it might be wise to say to your own thoughts, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I am not excusing Genpo. I am asking you to stop pointing the finger and look at yourself.

(By the way, sorry for the misspelling of Genpo-roshi's name in the title of this thread. Just call me typo-roshi

"Now try to place yourself on Kegan's map. If you find yourself feeling righteous indignation about the Genpo affair, where might that place you on the hierarchy?"

I don't find myself on Kegan's map, am I dead? What is righteous indignation? Where is it in the body? What does it feel like? Why would I want it? Do I need it to move on to jaded? How jaded do I need to get to be inter-personally enlightened? Will that get me laid?

"Now, forget about Genpo and look at yourself. Slowly, patiently. What is it about this matter that has you stirred up?"

Nothing stirs me up about this, why should it stir me up? What should it be stirring? Are you coming on to me Kenneth?

"Is there some part of yourself that you would rather not know about? How is Genpo other than you?"

I would rather not be an adulterer and I have found it very simple and straightforward to not become one. How is Genpo not other than me? Is he sleeping with my neighbors?"

"Do you feel absolutely certain that you could never violate your own code of ethics or that of your community?"

Yes, absolutely certain. Is that a problem for someone? I've observed people screwing around on each other. They often seem to find the thrill of sneaking around exhilarating. People do this kind of stuff all the time. I'd still rather not do likewise. Is this a problem for the maybe 60 percent of dharma teachers who enjoy screwing their students? Not really, since I'm no ones teacher and no ones student and I don't think much of zen either. Believe it or not, it is possible to keep these kinds of foolishness out of your life with the help of a little tool called mindfulness.

Oh god, I don't think I'm even bored about this subject anymore, I must be emotionally dead.

Triplethink --

You seem to be a very cynical guy. Ok, so nothing moves you, you don't care, you're past relationships, you are ethically untouchable, you prefer presidential blowjobs to ill-chosen wars, etc.

So if you don't care about this issue--and you're so totally over it--why post on it? Why don't you post on something you care about?

It's a serious question.

Kenneth: "Do you feel absolutely certain that you could never violate your own code of ethics or that of your community?"

"Nathan: "Yes, absolutely certain."

I would take this as a red flag, Nathan. In my experience, it is the people who say "it could never happen to me" who are most likely to fall. This is what is meant by the shadow. Safer to acknowledge that you don't know what the future will bring, that you will inevitably make mistakes (especially the ones you don't see coming), you will try to be gentle with yourself when you do, and then you will try to clean up the mess as best you can.

"We seem to be saying the same thing, Florian!
"

Hi Jake,

I'm not convinced, and that's why I keep re-stating my thing. Thanks for your good humour and patience to figure out whether we're actually saying the same thing.

In #45, you wrote, "The purely conventional "rev"-- the term, the concept, the role-- *doesn't* have any power to hurt people-- does it? It's the way people (the congregation and the "rev" especially) relate to those rule/role structures as mechanisms for hiding from their own freedom that leads those same folks to suffer."

And in #48 you wrote ""seems" yes, that's just it!".

These passages are what makes me so unsure whether we're saying the same thing, because no matter what I might think of the situation, how imaginary these titles and positions seem to me: these people don't just "seem to suffer" - they are really suffering, right now. No matter how much I grow up and am able to hold many conflicting opinions on the matter simultaneously - these people can't and the fact that I can still doesn't help them at all.

That's what I'm saying. I can't explain away their suffering. To reduce their suffering to a case-study for some model of social maturity would be a bit, well, reductionist at best, and awfully close to Orwellian doublethink at worst.

You know, like the difference between being able to talk about pull-ups and being able to do them.

Again, thanks for taking an interest in discussing these fine points.

Cheers,
Florian

Kenneth--

Here would be a few points that I think are worth keeping alive.

Sexual life is probably the single most complex arena in human life. And for the last several thousand years of civilization it has been a major area of repression, fear, and shame. The idea that we can judge another's consensual sex life seems tricky to me unless one is right there in the midst of it. Even then, I don't think our culture has much wisdom to offer.

If so many spiritual teachers "fail" the test of spiritual chastity, maybe it isn't the individual teachers who are crazy but the nature of the system that is deeply flawed? This is the kind of question we ought to be asking in my opinion. You can either have men in the system, or you can have a sexless system. That's about the end of it. The question is one of balance--I don't think we are near balance at the moment.

Probably the only thing that has really changed recently is that all privacy is going away because of media and the internet. In days gone by, Genpo's drama would probably be shoved under the carpet. Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy--they all had strange sex lives. The uncomfortable truth, I think, is that the greater the evaporation of privacy, the more we will see what we are really like, even the "best" of us. What's the Tibetan saying--You should live at least three valleys away from your guru?

Yours,
Mark

"If so many spiritual teachers "fail" the test of spiritual chastity, maybe it isn't the individual teachers who are crazy but the nature of the system that is deeply flawed?" -mdaf30

YES!

Ahh. Thanks linking to that article. Now the direction you were aiming for makes more sense. Where am I on his map? Not going to venture into that one. Searching myself, I find no righteous indignation towards Gempo's actions. If was communicated it was due to my writing and wasn't intended. He is free to do what he wants with his sex life. I am very capable of violating my own ethics and those of a community to which I may belong. He is no different than me. My point is this--Genpo chose to join a community. Within this community the center of gravity dictates that teachers shouldn't sleep with students. Putting myself in his position, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to resign or be asked to leave that community. He is free to branch out (and he will) by teaching independently. Nevertheless, if we violate the codes of our chosen communities there will be consequences.

"Kenneth: "Do you feel absolutely certain that you could never violate your own code of ethics or that of your community?"

"Nathan: "Yes, absolutely certain."

I would take this as a red flag, Nathan. In my experience, it is the people who say "it could never happen to me" who are most likely to fall. This is what is meant by the shadow. Safer to acknowledge that you don't know what the future will bring..."

Well, you're a nice fellow Kenneth but you're really not my type. I just don't feel that way about you.

You can suggest placing confidence in flags and maps all you like. I'm sticking with mindfulness, appropriate attention and a clear conscience because I know what I like. I prefer solitude to company. People have voiced surprise at this, amazed that I'm not ever lonely. I'll add your cynicism to the list of responses. I've managed to avoid adultery for almost half a century and I feel optimistic that it will only get easier. I'm content with my long gone teacher and this old fashioned approach. I'm tossing it into the mix for contrast, not because I think it is going to help people deal with their interpersonal messes. Just because some teachers can't seem to find the buttons that work their libidos doesn't mean that I haven't or that it isn't possible to remain mindful and at ease without a steady diet of sexual adventures. Whatever the future brings, I'm bringing the same resolve to remain alone. I could get raped by a rabid roshi. I'd forgive him and go have my ass fixed.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Ignorance[1] precedes the arrival of unskillful qualities; lack of conscience & lack of concern[2] follow after. Clear knowing precedes the arrival of skillful qualities; conscience & concern follow after."

§ 40. {Iti 2.13; Iti 34}

Your gagging for it !