Culadasa Misconduct Allegations - Discussion
Not too good, not too bad, just a human being.
This last time, for diferent sutations in my life I trying to understand what is desire and why is an strong impulse that drives to act in certain ways.
When I was traveling 2 years ago in south-asia I was in Thailand and someone recomend me a temple in Udon Thani. People said that the monk master was full awakened and has powers and everything, the full pack. So I went there with the idea to learn Jhanas, so we have like two meetings a week, every time I ask about how to enter into the Jhanas He start speaking about Sila and the four immeasurables, how important is compassion and love, give oneself to others etc. I got pissed off becouse he always talk about that and he didnt tell me to much about jhana. He always repeat the same thing in all the talks we have: "Sila is my shield".
This last time this "Sila is my shield" start to make more sense to me, and I see how important is. A shield to protect ourself but also to protect others. At the end I think is about being honest and clear with onself and do our best with our defects of character without trying to hurt other people.
Ironically the most "good persons" I know; people who has genuinely a good heart, that gives with expect nothing in return, that have always time for you, that radiates compasion and love; they never done any kind of meditation practice and dont know nothing about that topic. This made me think a lot about that. I meditated quite a lot and I still see myself selfish and self-centred ( here Im talkin about me hehe) driven by plesure and my own personal benefits.
So yeah...why he did all this stuff? Who knows, maybe subconsciously he wanted to sabotage himself and kill the character he created or other people push him to be. Or maybe he just want to have sex and enjoy life
. Being the "archetype of Buddha" is not easy. Culadassa goes back to stage 1 haha! No-no just joking...
Anyways what he has given with his book, talks, inspiration and everything is in some way is immeasurable too
This last time, for diferent sutations in my life I trying to understand what is desire and why is an strong impulse that drives to act in certain ways.
When I was traveling 2 years ago in south-asia I was in Thailand and someone recomend me a temple in Udon Thani. People said that the monk master was full awakened and has powers and everything, the full pack. So I went there with the idea to learn Jhanas, so we have like two meetings a week, every time I ask about how to enter into the Jhanas He start speaking about Sila and the four immeasurables, how important is compassion and love, give oneself to others etc. I got pissed off becouse he always talk about that and he didnt tell me to much about jhana. He always repeat the same thing in all the talks we have: "Sila is my shield".
This last time this "Sila is my shield" start to make more sense to me, and I see how important is. A shield to protect ourself but also to protect others. At the end I think is about being honest and clear with onself and do our best with our defects of character without trying to hurt other people.
Ironically the most "good persons" I know; people who has genuinely a good heart, that gives with expect nothing in return, that have always time for you, that radiates compasion and love; they never done any kind of meditation practice and dont know nothing about that topic. This made me think a lot about that. I meditated quite a lot and I still see myself selfish and self-centred ( here Im talkin about me hehe) driven by plesure and my own personal benefits.
So yeah...why he did all this stuff? Who knows, maybe subconsciously he wanted to sabotage himself and kill the character he created or other people push him to be. Or maybe he just want to have sex and enjoy life
. Being the "archetype of Buddha" is not easy. Culadassa goes back to stage 1 haha! No-no just joking...Anyways what he has given with his book, talks, inspiration and everything is in some way is immeasurable too
curious:
But the rather pious dharmic condemnation in the letter doesn't sit well with me.
Fair enough. But do notice that the letter was written by Culadasa's students, and that kind of piety was inculcated into them, or at least systematically reinforced, by Culadasa himself.
curious:
There are worse things in the Suttas.
Oh, absolutely. There's loads of bollocks in the suttas. That's not a very strong defence, though, is it?
curious:
But let's not cloak it in the dharma.
I am not a Buddhist, nor am I a particularly big fan of the word dharma, so I don't have much a dog in that fight.
There are more basic and universal laws than the dharma, one is if you talk the talk the talk, you've gotta walk the walk. This is a principle of dignity, virtue, and personal responsibility that applies to all domains of life and human interaction. Since Culadasa makes it all about 5 hindrances, 10 upasaka vows, and 10 fetters, he has to stand up to his own standards.
(Besides, again, I believe that there are more serious flaws in Culadasa, TMI, and his TT.)
curious:
With deep respect to you Neko (and I do mean that)
Appreciated and reciprocated.
Kim Katami:
Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.
Everyone knows what it alludes to, though I expect most have different ideas of where buddhood begins. IMHO, expecting anyone who appears to inhabit a human body to behave impeccably (according to YOUR standards) is simply folly, regardless of your aspersions about their attainment. Some of the greatest teachers have seemingly had very human failings. What is more important, from my perpective, is what these apparent failings show us about our OWN characters, not about theirs. We are always surrounded by dharma.
-
General Question: Was the dharma from Culadasa good enough for you BEFORE these allegations?
Stirling Campbell:
Kim Katami:
Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.
Everyone knows what it alludes to, though I expect most have (1) different ideas of where buddhood begins. IMHO, expecting anyone who appears to inhabit a human body to (2) behave impeccably (according to YOUR standards) is simply folly, regardless of your aspersions about their attainment. (3) Some of the greatest teachers have seemingly had very human failings. What is more important, from my perpective, is what these apparent failings show us about our OWN characters, not about theirs. We are always surrounded by dharma.
-
General Question: (4) Was the dharma from Culadasa good enough for you BEFORE these allegations?
1. What do you mean with "different ideas of where buddhahood begins"? I'm not a scholar but out from the top of my head I can't think of any differing views about this within mahayana schools.
2. No, I don't think it is foolish to expect perfect behaviour from buddhas, incl. those who inhabit physical body. However, it's a completely different question who are buddhas and who are samsaric beings. Even a drop of poison spoils a tank of clear water.
3. Do you mean "greatest teachers" who were attained buddhas or just people who were great teachers? Who do you mean specifically?
4. I have his book which I've read a bit and watched a bunch of his lectures online. I always liked him and his style of teaching. I even applied for his teacher training, though was rejected.
Kim Katami:
1. What do you mean with "different ideas of where buddhahood begins"? I'm not a scholar but out from the top of my head I can't think of any differing views about this within mahayana schools.
2. No, I don't think it is foolish to expect perfect behaviour from buddhas, incl. those who inhabit physical body. However, it's a completely different question who are buddhas and who are samsaric beings. Even a drop of poison spoils a tank of clear water.
3. Do you mean "greatest teachers" who were attained buddhas or just people who were great teachers? Who do you mean specifically?
4. I have his book which I've read a bit and watched a bunch of his lectures online. I always liked him and his style of teaching. I even applied for his teacher training, though was rejected.
Kim,
1. I mean in general, or amongst those on this board - not specifically in the Mahayana view. I personally agree with Dogen, and actually think this applies nicely to the entire question of Culadasa's behavior:
As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings.
As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death. - Dogen, Genjo-koan
2. Arhats are considered Buddhas in some traditions. An arhat would abide in no-self (IMHO) but still act as a human, flaws and all. I am not saying that this is Culadasa. As for a true "Mahayana" Buddha... I have not met one to the best of my knowledge, so cannot comment.
3. I think you could say it was either. Even the Buddha lost his temper, if we are to believe some accounts. I consider both Sogyal Rinpoche (who I have seen teach) and Chogyam Trungpa to be some of the greatest teachers (as an example) and yet many would agree that both had their flaws from a human behavioral perspective.
4. I meant to ask this question to the entire board, so don't feel singled out. Thank you for your answer.
neko:
There are more basic and universal laws than the dharma, one is if you talk the talk the talk, you've gotta walk the walk. This is a principle of dignity, virtue, and personal responsibility that applies to all domains of life and human interaction. Since Culadasa makes it all about 5 hindrances, 10 upasaka vows, and 10 fetters, he has to stand up to his own standards.
Neko, you are right. If that is how he is presenting himself, that is how he should live.
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
curious:
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
Oh, absolutely: If someone publicly presented himself thusly, it'd be totes kosher AFAIC. Let consenting adults do consenting adult stuff.
neko:
curious:
An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ... I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.
Poem about happiness
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.
Drukpa Kunley
Oh, absolutely: If someone publicly presented himself thusly, it'd be totes kosher AFAIC. Let consenting adults do consenting adult stuff.
It's an interesting phenomenon where the people who we thought of as pristine, go down hard for things like adultery (think Tiger Woods, Hugh Grant). But JFK, rock stars, get away with it without much of a second thought. It's almost part of their charm. Same with spiritual teachers.
Osho demanded blowjobs at forty-five minute intervals from his acolytes, but he owned it and boasted to have had more sex than any man in history.
We care more about the supposed inconsistency than we due about the action itself.
Sugar Dharma Daddy:
I also see the point in the argument behind this. There are structures at play that enable people in some positions to get away with things that are harmful to others. Being a teacher in the dharma is one such position, and it also interacts with other positions with regard to power structures such as gender inequalities, racism, class, and ableism. I think it is important to be aware of these structures and mindful of how they affect us. By making excuses we contribute to structures that enable this to happen. Especially if we do it differently for different people. I cannot tell to what extent we are doing this, but to some extent I think it is likely that we are (as a collective).
Your question, as simple and "no brainer" as it seems, got me thinking here, in a good way :
Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
:Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
Ben V.:
Your question, as simple and "no brainer" as it seems, got me thinking here, in a good way :
Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
:Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."
Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints.
It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.
It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections.
What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.
As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.
So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship.
In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.
Now this is very constructive thinking, I’d say. This is how we learn from what’s happened. Of course that doesn’t help with the close relationships affected by this, but it is not for us to take on that learning either.
