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

This thread strikes me as a little wierd.

Measuring up to Keegan's map:

Interpersonal to the degree that I acknowledge that lots of people are suffering from the situation, that it's not just a matter of me reducing my suffering by holding my opinions in a certain way.

Institutional to the degree that I think suffering ought to be reduced rather than increased.

Interindividual to the degree that I can see how this leads to that and why people would act the way they do, even if it increases their suffering.

I could probably argue for Imperial, Impulsive and Incorporative as well, but won't bother.

What stirs me up, i.e. makes me contribute to this thread, is complex - a bit of shame about my stance of "Religious leaders exploiting followers, what's so new?" a few years ago, when reading Stewart Lachs' articles for the first time, and resulting from that, a bit of anger when I think I see this stance upheld - a bit of helplessness watching the situation, like watching a bad car accident from an office window, unable to do anything about it, fully aware that there are human bodies being crushed right there, right now - and of course, a bit of indignation at the institutions, the inhuman way they behave, the way they feed on human lives and spit out people who are spent and broken, and naturally this indignation is also directed at the people upholding institutions in the first place, all the supporters who are busy pushing the Juggernaut along, taking the casualties (who in the case we're discussing here include the ex-Roshi) for granted somehow.

How is Genpo other than me? What is this, a koan? He's other than me in that I'm commenting his situation, rather than the other way around, for example.

I don't know if I "could" violate my code of ethics; I have litle use for constructing hypothetical situations and then imagining what I would do in them. (cont)

"This thread strikes me as a little wierd. "

I got married on the weekend................plop!

Hehe!

(cont from previous post) What I do know is that I have violated various parts of what I consider my code of ethics in the past.

Generally, I don't find it useful at all to divide my thinking into what could or could not be, what ought to be and what shouldn't be, or even what should or shouldn't have happened (North Ireland? What the Protestants/Catholics should not have done three hundred years ago? Never forget what they should not have done? ...)

@Kenneth: I'm not seeing all that much indignation at Genpo's actions in this thread. I appreciate your pointing out this tendency, and it's very good to be honest with myself and consider the very real possibility that I'm carefully hiding my self-righteousness from myself - but all in all, the tone in this thread has been remarkably thoughtful for a bunch of Buddhist sympathizers.

Cheers,
Florian

"I got married on the weekend"

Hey hey, congratulations!

(Now don't sleep with your students unless it's okay with your wife, students, and sanga!)

"I got married on the weekend................plop!

Hehe!"

Congratulations Nik!!!

Hey everyone, I just deleted a post that I feared might case a flame war. No offense intended. Let's keep this on track as best we can.

Thanks

The cogent point, to me, is that we are very judgmental and in the U.S. prone to a rather Puritanical view of sex and sexuality. Despite the images I see on television, on the web and in the magazines my wife subscribes to (i.e.; Vogue, Vanity Fair), we're prudish when it comes to judging the dalliances of others, even though the statistics are quite clear -- many of us will engage in adultery and/or other sexual relationships that our neighbors would probably call "wrong."

So the question is, frankly, "Why are our high minded, publicly espoused yet seldom-lived-by morals so far out of whack with our human nature?"

I'm with Mark on this one.

"Hey everyone, I just deleted a post that I feared might case a flame war. No offense intended. Let's keep this on track as best we can.

Thanks"

But surely, it would have been a flamewar at the interindividual level?

@Nik - congratulations! But how come you're spending your time in front of the computer today? Switch that thing off already!

Cheers,
Florian

Hey Florian! Yeah, this is tough and touchy stuff and i appreciate your evident easy going patience and good humor too. It's a real pleasure to converse with someone on such a subtle topic in an atmosphere of mutual respect

I think you are pointing to something important in saying that the suffering of these folks and many posters here on this thread for that matter is entirely real, and I just want to emphasize that I'm in no way dismissing that. I think the socio-developmental perspective offers an important avenue for adressing such suffering. Here's an example of real suffering arising in relation to mores, titles, and sociological norms being challenged. My Grandmother is a very traditional Franco-American Catholic, and she used to experience real, evident, and deep emotional disturbance at the notion of an "out" homosexual priest. Her suffering was real, but I submit that its causality wasn't as simple as she made it out to be. It took a lot of patience on behalf of her daughter and grandaughter to help ease that suffering through challenging Nana's ideas about what a "Priest" is, about what that title means and doesn't means. It was painful to watch her suffer around this issue, but gratifying when she lightened up around it through listening to what some younger folks were saying. So: her pain was real. Gay Catholic priests who choose to come out (even remaining celibate) are pretty inarguably violating cultural norms in their communities (and also validating other Christian norms, too, of course). Of course I'm not equating a gay priest with a philandering narcissist; I'm saying that real suffering can arise from how we hold our social norms. If Nana had been at an interindividual level of maturity she would likely have had a similar reaction to the issue as my aunt and cousin did. Instead, as a person with a lower level of maturity in Kegan's scheme, she really suffered!

Now, if Genpo's students were at an interindividual level of maturity, they would be significantly less susceptible to odd pressures from him (if such were part of it) because they wouldn't be naively projecting the Zen Master Mystique onto him. They would be receiving pointing out instructions and practice guidance, then living their lives as autonomous individuals. Now, if Genpo had been at an interindividual level of development socio-emotionally, he would have been straight with his family and his community about his sexual preferences instead of being a coward. Then everyone could have made informed decisions about how to interact with him based on his actual preferences and inclinations and patterns rather than on the "roles" and "rules" that go with his "title". See what I mean? It's not that his wife and family wouldn't have suffered if he had changed his mind about what kind of relationship he wanted with her if everyone had been more mature; it's that the whole thing wouldn't have been clogged up by the interference patterns arising from the clash of instinctual impulses and social mores. Rather interesting in this regard how (I'm just dredging stuff up from some long ago sociology and anthropolgy classes now) it appears quite normal, cross-culturally, for humans to violate social norms (violate the parameters of their roles, i.e., committing adultery for example). The real problems arise in a community when someone gets caught. Breaking the rules seems to be extremely common cross culturally, suggesting that it's more about maintaining the veneer than actually acting a certain way that "holds society together".

Do you know what's wierd about this thread? We're using a very specific example to riff off of. It seems wierd to make general statements about sexuality and social norms -- but yet somehow link it to a situation where someone might have been acting inappropriately. Or are folks saying that it isn't possible to act inappropriately?

....... um (confused chuckle) what's wrong with using a real-world example to examine issues of sociology, maturity, suffering, and so on? I mean, I'll admit that a lot of text books and social science journal articles are pretty wierd, sometimes goofy, and occasionally bizarre, but I can't think of an example in which using concrete examples to explore abstract implications and patterns was the reason for seeming so!

"....... um (confused chuckle) what's wrong with using a real-world example to examine issues of sociology, maturity, suffering, and so on? "

Well, in keeping with the spirit of pragmatic Dharma, we should really practice hard and have our own affairs so we could compare notes from our own experience ... (just joking, of course. What we'd really do is launch off 4th Jhana and seduce a deva... (again, only joking... we would go teaching in the Brahma Heavens and then, when a Brahma falls in love with the teacher we'd still be safe, lacking form)))

... I'm a bit tired, it seems, this being Europe I'm sitting in. I'll respond to your other post later, Jake. Thanks for the reply, makes a lot of sense, btw.

Cheers,
Florian

"You seem to be a very cynical guy....

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."

What should I care about? Why? Why should I not post? I have a response to the OP that should be relevant from an anthropological pov. I meditate in fairly traditional ways and have a lot of respect and esteem for the teachings in the Tipitaka. I post because my experience is that both the methodology and the objectives of the doctrine and discipline given in the old discourses are quite effective when put into practice. I'm not interested in lording that over people like it is some kind of big accomplishment or that it is difficult to live that way. Its remarkably easy, if it is what you want to do. So I'm pointing that out, that it is doable and that it is pleasant to drop all this drama both in regards to yourself and in regards to everyone else. That's my comment, that it isn't necessary for all of us to be sexually active and it is totally fine not to be. It is not difficult to be at ease without those kinds of relationships particularly when one has an ease that comes from not relying on any relationships internally or externally. Look, either the self and other selves rule your life or they don't. If they don't then they don't and you can enjoy the benefits of that. That is how it is for me, it's doable dhamma, causal and resultant kamma, based on the cognizance that I am what I think, say and do. I have no self image to build up and protect any more than I have an image to tear down. I know plenty of people. I recognize there isn't much point in suggesting to most people that they opt out of anything that they want to be involved in but the consequences of opting out of adultery are all relatively quite pleasant and rewarding in their own ways. Why is that so heavy to suggest?

@ Florian: Cheers back atcha. While you get some rest I'm gonna go try the 4th Jhanna Deva seduction thing Or maybe I'll just have a bowl of cereal and read a book....

"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."

hi Ken

personally, my mind has no righteous glee for cutting down the tall poppy

to the contrary, my mind merely has concern for the well-being of the Dharma & for the safety of the faithful

please let us not forget the primary reason for the precepts is the mitigation of suffering

the precepts abide in non-harming

i am looking at "myself". i am looking at my mind that has the intention of non-harming or compassion

the transgressions of the Zen priest have not negated his life. he is not stoned to death

he simply no longer is given the trust reserved for Sangha & may continue training in the Dharma as a layman

warm regards

DD

"Maybe the deeper point comes back to the issue of taking responsibility for ourselves, each one of us. "

From the perspective of tiptoeing 1 step down the path (literally, not humbly), its very hard to fault people for their humanity. Karma is real. There is cause and effect, especially in the social sphere. So we can accept the effect as fact but can also understand when people behave as a ball of ignorant hormones.

Hi Jake,

The story about your grandmother is encouraging, and I'm happy it worked out for her and you all, and yet... how many interindividualists did it take to change one institutionalist? How many will it take to change all the institutionalists in western Zen?

The thing with institutions is, they attract institutionalists.

So you're proposing the strategy of lifting them all up one rung on the social maturity ladder. I'm not seeing it, I confess.

The other approach that's been discussed here is "the institution is broken". Patching up an institution by adding, for example, a code of behavior, i.e. using institutional means, seems to be a more pragmatic way of addressing this. Rules, even new rules, are easily understood and incorporated by the institutionalist mindset, whereas the painful and laborious changing of the entire mindset itself goes against the grain of, um, the mindset itself.

I'm afraid I didn't express that very clearly, but it'll have to do for now.

Oh, how's this: the veneer is the very thing holding the community together. (Like the Eiffel Tower: an engineer remarked to me once how it's probably only the paint which prevents it from collapsing after all these years, the rivets having rusted through years ago. Not entirely serious, but a vivid image)

Cheers,
Florian

Hi DD,

So the institution of Zen Priest is basically fine, and in the case under discussion here, it's simply a matter of finding a new and hopefully better Zen Priest? And even the auto da fé was so nice and civilized, it didn''t leave any blood stains or soot on the robe and bowl?

But in any case the robe has been laundered and the bowl was rinsed, and they are just waiting for someone worthy to pick them up again?

How often, in this image, can the robe be laundered before the seams come undone? Before the "trust reserved for sangha" becomes a hollow thing, a currency no longer accepted? Wouldn't that be a shame if it happened?

This is what's being discussed here. These are real questions. If they sound harsh, it's only because the subject matter is harsh, and I couldn't come up with a better way of phrasing them; the harshness is not directed at you personally, and I hope you don't take it that way.

Cheers,
Florian

"I got married on the weekend................plop!"

That's great news nick! I'm really happy for you both.

"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 "

FYI: My 'word' comment earlier on was about what jhsaintonge said. My forum use is a bit rusty, sorry for that.

About Brad Warner - when I read his critique, I see him criticizing Big Mind, and the sale of Dharma Indulgences (i.e. pay him to perform some sort of woo that will enlighten you without you doing anything yourself).

Just saying.

Cheers,
Florian

"How often, in this image, can the robe be laundered before the seams come undone? Before the "trust reserved for sangha" becomes a hollow thing, a currency no longer accepted? Wouldn't that be a shame if it happened?

This is what's being discussed here. "

For what it is worth, I basically agree with DD's statements for the Genpo Roshi example at hand, assuming the basics of the story are true. We still don't know everything about the situation -- whether it was one affair as he stated, the degree of maturity in this relationship, or whether many inappropriate acts occured as the sanga stated. Still sitting here with my popcorn...

I get that the purpose of this thread is to play with the kinds of questions that Florian poses.

But I'm wondering if were throwing a baby out with the dirty bathwater. No one is without sin or temptation and sometimes it takes external reminders to help us stay on track. But it is possible to find people who don't act grossly inappropriate and those folks can be given responsibility. And that person and we, ourselves, have a requirement to act if someone is acting inappropriately.

I like Florian's point about institutions attracting institutionalists. I think this takes us back to Ken's and Vinces posts about good rules for institutions that want to avoid these kinds of problems. If there isn't an admittion that these ranges of behavior can occur, then the institution will be unable to adjust to their arising. I don't think the range of behavior which can arise negates the value of institutions, that seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

@Florian-- Oh yes, I agree with you entirely r.e. the pragmatics of it. Look, I'm certainly not advocating a proselytizing for a certain level of social maturity, although that sort of thing can work within families or on the local, human scale level as in my example. If you want to know what I really think about how best to address these issues on a larger/longer-term scale, it's all about what we call k-12 in the states (5yrs-18yrs). You can't have an institution (school) that is structured like a cross between a factory and a prison, throw in some content that mentions sociology and psychology, and expect that content to in any way counter-weight the basic weight of the institutional messages which consistently tell kids to conform/rebel and demonstrate the consequences of such every day (move when the bell rings... never challenge authority... you are a resource which belongs to 'society'...). Familiar with the Prussian state's 19th century public education system upon which ours in the USA was intentionally based? It's all written plain in the history, it's not accidental. In other words all "institutions" aren't the same. In the raw sociological meaning of the term, an institution could have any level of social maturity as it's "target". So in the key example of education, we can look into ways to set the target higher. The research I'm aware of suggests that this is possible and desirable on all fronts-- economic, technological, cultural, political-- except for the little point that people educated in such institutions will have an automatically de-stablizing effect on social arrangements which are based on lower maturity levels (they don't care what hat or robe or title you wear, i.e., the higher your maturity level the more your sense of "right and wrong" boils down to direct harm and benefit, and less and less is contaminated with mores and traditional judgments).