Home » Blog » Facebook and “Contemporary Buddhism”

Facebook and “Contemporary Buddhism”

Mani stones
Mani stones

For some while I have been an “administrator” of a facebook group, now called “Contemporary Buddhism” though it started life as “Open Buddhism”.

In its early days it was, while allegedly set up for all sorts of open and potentially critical thinking, fuelled by the need to let off steam and face up to the scandals brought on Buddhism by Sogyal Lakar. The appalling behaviour of others like Trungpa, Mipham, Santarakshita and others.

Now that those issues are much more out in the open, I think the group has lost focus. I shall be happy to hang around – there are some good people there, and occasionally something interesting comes up. But I don’t think my time is well spent any more by being an admin, and I’m not convinced that the group has much to gain by having me there.

So I think it is time for me to step down as an active administrator in that group.

I use the word “active”, because, for the immediate near future at least, I shall not in fact “click myself out” of the role, just in case of some urgent need. But as and when either of the other administrators sees fit, I will not take it personally when the associated rights are cancelled.

I have chosen this moment, in part, because there is no particularly heated exchange going on at the moment. And in part, because it has no great focus any more.

Occasionally there are “feel-good” quotes or what we now call memes that get posted; they were something firmly against the original spirit of this group, which was to promote conversation and the exchange of information and understanding on some of those issues that are often swept under the carpet: sexual and other abuse, sexism more generally in Buddhist communities, racism and inverse racism in Buddhist communities and so forth. A post that did not either contribute to or initiate useful discussion was deleted. I will confess, however, that I tend not to do that any more, because I feel that it is somehow mean-spirited when there is nothing else very much going on there.

Much the same goes for those posts that do not invite discussion, but appear only to be intended to promote and publicise another blog or website in which the poster, Alex Kakuyo, as one example, has an interest. They are not what the group is for, but perhaps they are not that harmful either – I’m not sure that I particularly want to decide.

I have also had my fill, for the time being, of the people who come here with their own strange agenda. We can challenge those agendas – but is it worth it?

We have, for example, being through posting campaigns from Paul Beard, whose blue-clad acolytes consider that their “Dharmadatu Sangha” (the strange spelling is theirs) is a new, in some way “secular” Buddhist order at the same time as claiming not to be a new school. “Go figure”, as some put it. He had to be kicked off the group.

We have had Greta James with her bizarre and lurid claims about what she imagines goes on in the name of Highest Yoga Tantra. Asked for her source, she referred to a book; asked for page numbers, the book was unavailable. When a new copy was obtained, it was the wrong edition. In the meantime, a group member who actually worked on the said book told us that he has no memory of anything resembling her claims. The supposedly source has apparently still not been located. “Go figure”, as some put it.

We have had the claim that Trungpa (and let it be said that I am not at all impressed by Trungpa) arranged for “an evening of sexual entertainment” for the 16th Karmapa. Sources were asked for. I put myself to the displeasure of reading an entire hagiography of a drug dealer who worked for a short while as Trungpa’s cook. The entire “source” turns out to rest on a single word choice by the hagiographer at the point where, having been pushed to (justifiable, I would say) fury by Trungpa’s objectionable behaviour, catches a glimpse through the door into a room in which a number of people, including the Karmapa, are present, and refers to the people he glimpsed as a “slew” of bodies. Hmmm.

We have had Kim Katami, the self-styled Orgyen Rinpoche. The list of long-dead teachers from whom he claims to have received teachings is very long. The list of teachers he has actually met is, on the other hand, extremely short. “Go figure”, as some put it.

We have had Chad Foreman, who seems like quite a reasonable guy in many respects, who “studied vajrayana” he tells us, “full-time from 6 years living in a retreat hut”, but who never personally met his teacher and, as far as I can tell, didn’t receive an empowerment or instructions from him. Instead, he has found a new definition of self-empowerment which allows him to claim that “self initiation and empowerment are a valid alternative to guru initiations”. “Go figure”, as some put it.

We have wrestled with Ayya Yeshe’s posts, whose point that Western nuns don’t get a very good deal is entirely fair and often overlooked, but whose approach drove even many of her own sympathisers away. Any approach other than unadulterated agreement and approval was met with an accusation of “bullying, sexism, and intimidation on the part of a few powerful voices” in this group. Finally she left. “Go figure”, as some put it.

As a spin-off from things that happened there, I also had to deal with one “Sila Astarina Trevor” and her claims that, for instance, Trungpa’s mother was kept as a prostitute in the monastery, or that “Sakya Clan (Lamas and Royalty) in Tibet did what they liked sexually with women and boys – rape of women was the path to “enlightenment” -especially old men and young girls.” Asked for any sources as evidence of this presentation, which is rather more extreme than the usual picture, I was urged to ” Get real about all this …. Sources are there – look them up!”. That, it is clear to me, is a digital-age equivalent to the childish “everybody knows that..” dodge. She claimed that the sources were out there but that she was not “an expert on posting links”. Eventually she did refer to a book by Nancy Steinbeck, and I took the trouble to drag myself through that without, unfortunately, discovering anything particularly new. My previous ignorance of Ms Steinbeck and her book was viewed by this poster as evidence that I was “ingnoring to gaslight me as some kind of voyeur “, and asserted that Ms Steinbeck was to be believed because she “did her Masters Degree at Sorbonne”. Well, that’s nice, although I don’t claim any particular authority for having degrees from Oxford and an MPhil from Leicester. “Go figure”, as some put it.

Have I gone on a bit longer about this? I believe so, but the point is that this stuff goes on, and on, and on, and I need a rest from it.


Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *