The
latest dustup over
John Tarrant’s
Shambhala Sun
obituary for Robert Aitkin Roshi
provides us with yet another opportunity to
examine the issue of bad sexual behavior on
the part of some Buddhist teachers.
Unfortunately, this kind of examination is
always timely. In the past year we’ve seen
scandals surrounding Eido Shimano Roshi and
Dennis Gempo Merzel, but over the years
scandals within the Buddhist community have
become sadly familiar. We should take
these scandals as opportunities to explore
ever relevant questions concerning sex,
power, and Enlightenment.
The Third Lay
Buddhist Training Precept states “I
undertake the training rule to abstain from
sexual misconduct.” (Kāmesumicchācāra
veramanī sikkhāpadam samādiyāmi). The
precept emphasizes the prevention of harm to
sexual partners and concerned third
parties. The precept is vague, however,
about what constitutes sexual misconduct.
The precept is usually interpreted in the
light of the prevailing customs and mores
within each distinct Buddhist community.
Peter Harvey
[]
has done an excellent job of surveying the
ways the precept has been interpreted across
societies and over time. My review of these
interpretations below is abstracted from his
survey (but any errors in it are completely
my own).
Sexual misconduct
traditionally includes
adultery and consorting
with prostitutes (c.f.
Sutta-nipāta
and Nāgārjuna) as well
as rape and incest.
Having sex with anyone
who is already in a
committed relationship
with another is also
usually considered a
violation of the
precept. In Thailand
flirting with a married
woman is seen as a
violation, whereas in
Sri Lanka premarital sex
is proscribed. The
fourth-century
Abhidharma-kośa-bhāsya
included the use of
“unsuitable” orifices,
places, or times. The
Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra
included
frequenting brothels and
the use of
“instruments.” Gampopa’s
(1079-1153)
Jewel
Ornament of Liberation
included overly frequent
sex (more than five
successive times!) and
homosexuality, whereas
Patrul Rinpoche
(1808-1887) proscribed
masturbation in his
Kuzang Lama’i Shelung.
Buddhaghosa and
Śāntideva both
considered homosexual
behavior to be a
violation of the third
precept, but
homosexuality was
tolerated and accepted
in Japan, even as part
of monastic life.
Where does this leave the issue
of teacher-student sex? In the
contemporary West, the ethics
concerning teacher-student sex
are still evolving. In
elementary, middle, and high
schools teacher-student sexual
contact is not permitted as
students are still (for the most
part) minors who cannot give
consent, and because it would
constitute a serious violation
of a relationship of authority
and trust. Ethical rules
concerning college
faculty-student sex are less
clearly delineated since many
students are no longer minors.
Some colleges forbid it, others
merely discourage it. Ethical
guidelines recognize an inherent
conflict between grading and
writing letters of
recommendation for students and
being in a sexual relationship
with them. While
faculty-student relationships
occur with considerable
frequency, there’s also a
considerable degree of
queasiness about the potential
for abuse of power within these
relationships. In counseling
and clinical psychology,
therapist-client sexual
encounters are considered
ethical violations.
Psychology’s ethical standards
recognize the danger of abuses
of power, the need for therapist
objectivity, and the irrational
idealizations that clients may
project onto therapists.
Lastly, we might mention that
sex abuse scandals within the
Roman Catholic Church have
increased public awareness of
the real and enduring
psychological and spiritual harm
caused by violations of clerical
authority and trust.
These issues of trust,
authority, abuse of power,
idealizations and projections,
and the need for teachers to
retain impartiality and
objectivity are all relevant to
the question of relationships
between Buddhist teachers and
their students, and there have
been attempts to develop codes
of ethics for Buddhist
teachers. For example,
Spirit Rock has developed a
code of ethics for teachers in
the Insight Meditation tradition
that includes the following
paragraphs:
“We agree to avoid
creating harm through
sexuality and to avoid
sexual exploitation or
relationships of a sexual
manner that are outside of
the bounds of the
relationship commitments we
have made to another or that
involve another who has made
vows to another. Teachers
with vows of celibacy will
live according to their
vows. Teachers in committed
relationships will honor
their vows and refrain from
adultery. All teachers agree
not to use their teaching
role to exploit their
authority and position in
order to assume a sexual
relationship with a student.
Because several single
teachers in our community
have developed partnerships
and marriages with former
students, we acknowledge
that such a healthy
relationship can be
possible, but that great
care and sensitivity are
needed. We agree that in
this case the following
guidelines are crucial:
A) A sexual relationship
is never appropriate between
teachers and students.
B) During retreats or
formal teaching, any
intimation of future
student-teacher romantic or
sexual relationship is
inappropriate.
C) If interest in a genuine
and committed relationship
develops over time between a
single teacher and a
student, the student-teacher
relationship must clearly
and consciously have ended
before any further
development toward a
romantic relationship. Such
a relationship must be
approached with restraint
and sensitivity – in no case
should it occur immediately
after retreat. A minimum
time period of three months
or longer from the last
formal teaching between
them, and a clear
understanding from both
parties that the
student-teacher relationship
has ended must be coupled
with a conscious commitment
to enter into a relationship
that brings no harm to
either party.”
Similar codes of ethics have
been developed by a number of
Zen communities, including ones
where teacher misconduct has
occurred in the past (e.g., San
Francisco Zen Center, Kwan Um
School of Zen).
Given the evolving consensus
about teacher-student
relationships, why does
misconduct continue to occur?
The answer is simple: because
all human beings are imperfect,
and because any position of
power invites both temptations
and opportunities for abuse.
The Buddhist community, however,
may have several unique factors
that complicate addressing this
issue.
Certain tantric practices (e.g.,
the use of
mudras or
“seals”) may open the door for
potential abuse unless there is
a widely understood consensus on
ethical guidelines regarding
their use. Similarly, the
idealization of “crazy wisdom”
within tantric traditions may
lead students to rationalize
teachers’s unacceptable
behaviors, and teachers to
rationalize being
out-of-control.
The
biggest obstacle within
Buddhism, however, may be
the idea of
“Enlightenment”
itself. Enlightenment is
traditionally described as
something that puts a permanent
end to unwholesome desiring.
Once one has achieved
Enlightenment, there’s no
backsliding. Enlightened Beings
are, by definition, incapable of
sexual misconduct. Any teacher
who believes this is at risk for
becoming an abuser. Any student
who believes this is at risk for
rationalizing and accepting
abuse.
The idea that one can have a
magical experience that makes
one perfect and makes one
invulnerable to harmful
temptations is a fairy tale.
Everyone’s brain contains a
hypothalamus, and no amount of
meditation or insight can
surgically remove it. The
hypothalamus is the seat of
desire in the human nervous
system, including sexual
desire. We have a wonderful
cerebral cortex which can
dampen, override, and modify
hypothalamic output, but not
eliminate it. As Freud might
say, we all have an “id,” a
dynamic, insatiable source of
passion and desire, that is a
permanent part of our
psychological constitution.
Buddhism teaches us to be
heedful and mindful of desire
and deal with it intelligently
in order to be fully and
completely human. It shouldn’t
teach that there’s a stage when
we no longer need to exert due
care.
Buddhist practitioners often
experience powerful meditative
experiences that have real
transformative power. These
realizations, however, do not
completely obliterate temptation
or the repetition and acting-out
of deeply ingrained behavioral
patterns. Meditative
realizations need to be
gradually actualized and
reinforced. Psychotherapists
know that a genuine insight in
one situation does not
automatically generalize and
transfer to other situations.
There’s a process called
“working through” that needs to
occur before one can actualize
insight across circumstances.
Similarly, Korean Zen Master
Bojo Jinul (1158-1210) taught
that the Buddhist path is one of
“sudden enlightenment” followed
by “gradual cultivation.” We
never finish our development.
Enlightenment is a horizon we
aim at, not something we
achieve.
That’s why codes of ethics will
always be necessary. That’s why
there will always be Buddhist
teachers who will fall short of
embodying them. That’s why our
life needs to be one of
continual practice.
For more info visit
www.existentialbuddhist.com