Category Archives: Hierarchy

Disrobing “Big Mind”

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t know what kind of monk Genpo Roshi actually intended to be, but his recent disrobing brings up some good issues around a few of the elements of monasticism I’ve been writing about.

  • Celibacy & Sexuality (can monks be sexually active? how ’bout unfaithfully so? polyamorous?)
  • Vows (where do marriage vows and monastic vows overlap?)
  • Hierarchy (what happens when unfaithful sex is with your intended successor?)
  • Renunciation (as Brad Warner points out below, poverty clearly wasn’t one of Genpo Roshi’s vows. Can/should monks make money? Can/should they charge lots and lots of money for their spiritual services?).

Brad Warner, author of “Sex, Sin, and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between“ writes at Elephant Journal (via @duffmcduffee):

Look. I am not insisting all Zen monks take a vow of absolute poverty and live on just what they can carry in a knapsack slung over their backs like the monks in ancient China did. I know we’re living in a completely different society than they were. I own three bass guitars, a used PT Cruiser, and a ten-speed bike. I wouldn’t want to have to stuff those in a knapsack. But three houses? For the love of God, who needs three houses? I don’t even have one!

To weigh in on the matter: I’ve tried out Hal and Sidra Stone’s ”voice dialogue” technique, which forms the basis of Genpo Roshi’s (now Genpo Merzel’s) Big Mind Big Heart process, and have found it genuinely interesting and psychologically revealling, especially in a community setting. I look forward to exploring voice dialogue further, on its own (therapeutic) terms. I have a hard time with Genpo’s claims that the process can lead to genuine experiences of enlightenment in a few hours, but I don’t rule out the possibility that people are having subjectively very powerful spiritual experiences.

In the end, though, there is something deeply disturbing about the fact that Genpo has been able to charge as much as he does (allegedly $50,000 a session, at one point) for his process. With that kind of price tag, it starts to smell like people’s desperate spiritual cravings are being taken advantage of.

Insofar as what happened was a sexual tryst, I agree with Warner (see Elephant article linked to above) that it really is “between him, his wife, and his lover.” Insofar as what happened broke his personal monastic vow, it’s between him and… himself. But insofar as it violated his responsibility to his successor (e.g. to not contaminate a professional power dynamic with sexual energy) and thereby his community, it is problematic.

Warner points out one of the greatest benefits to being a part of a community: accountability.

By leaving the Buddhist community, Genpo has now put himself beyond the reach of the only people who could legitimately criticize Big Mind®. I expect to see Big Mind® get even bigger and cause more destruction. Even absent the Big Mind® nonsense, remaining in the Buddhist order would have been the best way to address the other matters.

If the community’s way of holding Genpo accountable for his actions is to remove him from the community, to whom will he now be accountable? His customers?

Jesus Lama

Posted on by
Reply

…the encounter between Catholicism and Buddhism cannot take place at the level of the Magisterium, it can only take place at the level of two contemplatives talking together in private.

—Harold Talbott, paraphrasing Dom Aelred Graham, in “Thomas Merton in the Himalayas, An Interview with Harold Talbott” from Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Summer, 1992.

If the typos and the fuchsia are off-putting in the link above, I recommend reading the article in full at Tricycle (you’ll need a paid membership; pick up a copy of Rebel Buddha while you’re at it.), here.

More highlights:

He went out to take photographs and met Sonam Kazi. I knew this from his eyes before he told me. And that was the birth of the blues, the beginning of the Dzogchen teachings for Thomas Merton. Sonam Kazi was the official interpreter assigned to the Dalai Lama by the government of India, the interpreter, for example, in the talks between Nehru, Chou En Lai, and the Dalai Lama. Sonam ran into Merton on the road, invited him to a teahouse and zapped him.

…Merton was a ripened and ready object of a visit from Sonam Kazi and he got it. He said to me occasionally after that “I came to Asia to study Zen in Japan and now I have changed my itinerary and I’m going to study Dzogchen in India with the Tibetans.”

…

[T]he Dalai Lama looked at Merton and said, “What do you want?” And Merton said, “I want to study Dzogchen.”

…

Tricycle: What did the Dalai Lama ask Merton about Christianity?

Talbott: If I’m not mistaken, it was about how you live the contemplative life in the West and what you do to make it possible in this modern world to live the life of a monk in the West. How do you stave off spiritual annihilation?

…

The fact is that he told the Dalai Lama that wanted to study Dzogchen so the Dalai Lama spent hours preparing him to find a Dzogchen guru. And he found him in the Chatral Rinpoche. He went down to Sri Lanka where he convinced himself that he had the experience of dhamakaya (emptiness), seeing the status of the Shakyamuni statues and Ananda. Then he was electrocuted and died and we are left to sit here and talk about how Dzogchen was the final bestowal on Merton by a divinely compassionate savior.

…

Then he went and addressed the heads of contemplative communities in Bangkok. The conclusions he reached were conclusions that the late Trungpa Rinpoche had drawn too: in Merton’s words “It’s every monk for himself now.” Structures can no longer be relied on to provide protection to foster the spiritual life. Everyone – ordained or not- for himself, through his practice of her practice. And one of the most congenial means for going on your own is Dzogchen.

Chapter 7 Augustine’s Rule, on Governance & Obedience

Posted on by
Reply

Starting on October 2nd, I’ll be doing a Jesuit retreat on the Rule of Augustine (which I’ve written about here: “Up to our necks in Augustine”).

Each day, I’ll read 1 of the 8 chapters of the Rule of Augustine.

Today’s reading is from Chapter VII on “Governance and Obedience” from the Rule of Augustine1, one of the “mother rules” of western monasticism. 2 With this set of rules, Augustine aimed to “to found a community of love oriented towards contemplation.” 3

As usual, read as much of the text as you want, slowly and meditatively, observing your own reactions with a broad, open awareness. I offer some commentary and resources in the footnotes for when you want to come back for more context or a deeper understanding.

Augustine’s Rule, Chapter VII Continue reading →

  1. Full text here ↩
  2. From “A History of Monastic Spirituality” by Luc Brésard of the abbey of Citeaux. ↩
  3. More from “A History of Monastic Spirituality” ↩

Nuggets

Posted on by
Reply

Ken Wilber, in Always Already: The Brilliant Clarity of Ever-Present Awareness:

Many people have stern objections to “mysticism” or “transcendentalism” of any sort, because they think it somehow denies this world, or hates this earth, or despises the body and the senses and its vital life, and so on. While that may be true of certain dissociated (or merely Ascending) approaches, it is certainly not the core understanding of the great Nondual mystics, from Plotinus and Eckhart in the West to Nagarjuna and Lady Tsogyal in the East.

on Boomeritis Buddhism:

But as authentic as those states truly are—and nobody is denying that!—they are immediately snapped up and interpreted by the green meme [postmodernism/pluralism].  Consequently, the person then interprets Buddhism—or simply his or her own spiritual experiences—to mean that authentic spirituality must be anti-hierarchical, relativistic, primarily a matter of participatory sharing, focused on caring dialogue, a democratic jettisoning of any ranking between teacher and student (‘the sangha is the buddha’), denying any grading and judging, encouraging a multiplicity and diversity of equally valid truths, asserting a plurality of spiritual ultimates, de-emphasizing enlightenment since any ‘higher’ states might marginalize somebody, seeing the spiritual teacher as merely an egalitarian friend with whom we walk the nonhierarchical spiritual path, hand in hand as equals, dispensing with intense discipline and denying that awakening is anything other than doing the laundry with some sort of awareness….”

theFWD submission #4

Posted on by
Reply

[intended partially as a provocation, partially completely seriously, for the Future We Deserve collaborative book project]

3rd-Party Certification of Spiritual Agents, Teachers & Centers

The goal of certification is to protect both spiritual practitioners (agents), teachers, and centers.

Monastic tradition, by adhering to openly published rules and vows and being accountable to a central governance body of some kind, essentially offers the same kind of protection. A secular monastic tradition can go even further in this direction, but the governance body need only be a non-profit certifying organization, with no other authority.

The principals of the certifying organization will be such that it’s highest goals are to protect practitioners, teachers and centers by focusing on 1) education, 2) transparency and 3) accountability, without saying anything about what consititutes a “right path” (except, of course, by implying that what practitioners need to be protected from—unconsensual physical & sexual abuse—are a “wrong path” and that more subjective abuses—emotional and verbal—should only be entered into with eyes wide open.)

The certification of spiritual agents and spiritual teachers/center are essentially interconnected (if one is not present, the other is less effective).

Certified spiritual agents

For the agent, certification here depends on 1) broad knowledge of spiritual traditions and 2) acknowledging the problematic or dangerous aspects of some types of spiritual pursuit. Spiritual agents take responsibility for their own spiritual journey. They thus understand the risks associated with the path, and have studied the history of spirituality broadly, the characteristics of various spiritual communities and teachers and styles of teaching, and are assumed capable of making informed decisions when choosing a spiritual teacher or community. They seek out certified spiritual teachers and centers.

Certified spiritual teachers / spiritual centers

Spiritual teachers are certified by submitting to a certain level of 1) transparency and 2) accountability. No legal teaching method is forbidden for certification, but it must be transparently stated. The teacher or center is accountable to act in accordance with their transparently statements, or risk losing certification. Certified spiritual teachers / centers may or may not state that they only accept certified spiritual agents. They may be required to state which model(s) of spiritual progress and which view(s) of enlightenment/awakening/realization they hold, if any.

Examples:

“This center accepts only students who are 1) certified spiritual agents and 2) have spent more than a cumulative 1 month in silent meditation.”

“This teacher will act according to a set of guidelines as follows: no verbal, physical, or emotional abuse. Trained psychological counselors are standing by to assist you should you encounter a tricky spot.”

“This teacher employs crazy wisdom, which may take the form of verbal and physical abuse. By becoming a student you understand the risk, and you’re on your own.”

“This center employs the guru-model. Its view is that the spiritual path is best treated with an outside intervention. By coming here you are asking the center to do whatever it takes (within the law) to help you reach your goal.”

“This monastery requires a vow of 1) obedience to the abbot/abbess, 2) commitment to staying at the monastery and 3) daily conversion of your life. You enter a 1 year trial period and 3 years as a novitiate before becoming an avowed monk.” 1

Notes:

  1. Notice that this is basically what monastic traditions do, by following openly published monastic rules ↩

theFWD submission #1

Posted on by
2

In developing my ideas on secular monasticism, I’ve been attempting to both to hone my thinking and to let it run completely wild.  I found a great opportunity to do so in The Future We Deserve. I submitted a few inter-related pieces for this collaborative book on:

  1. Secular monasticism
  2. Art monasticism
  3. Spirituality as game
  4. 3rd-party spiritual certification
  5. Monastech

Here’s the 1st:

Secular monasticism

In contrast to other types of intentional community, monasticism is in decline 1 in the global north. Is it a social form that has lost its relevance to the developed, and increasingly secular world?

If we consider monasticism as an exaptation (a useful by-product) of religion, we can ask the question: What would secular monasticism look like? 2

Definition

A secular monastery is a structure, independent of any one spiritual lineage or religious tradition, for increasing mindfulness and compassion in the world. As a structure in space and time, and as a social structure, it is designed to foster gratitude and awareness.

Secular monasticism is an empty, open framework for a community that

  1. appropriately adapts time-tested elements of monasticism.
  2. assumes the spiritual agency of community members and fosters this capacity
  3. provides a means by which members can discover how their goals overlap
  4. provides an agreed upon structure in space and in time to best achieve these common goals.

Elements of Monasticism

What distinguishes monasteries from other types of intentional community, such as communes, ecovillages, student cooperatives, land co-ops, cohousing groups, ashrams, kibbutzes, and farming collectives3? Some of the elements unique to monasticism include:

  • Unique structure in space (architecture with equality, eco-efficiency and mindfulness in mind)
  • Unique structure in time (shared schedule of work, meals and contemplation together throughout day)
  • Unique governance & social structure (monastic rules & vows about things like celibacy, renunciation & poverty, hard work, silence, etc.)
  • Unique practice (e.g. meditation, prayer, chant, “lectio divina,” art-making, study, debate, philosophy, mysticism)
  • Unique goal (e.g. whatever it is that contemplation leads to, whether that’s God, the absolute, non-dual awareness, awakening, concentration, peace, knowledge, etc.)
  • Unique members (avowed monastics who may or may not be separated by gender)
  • Unique relationship to society and ecology at large (ecological sustainability, a degree of separateness from society, subordination to a centrally organized spiritual lineage or religious tradition)4

What can we tweak in this equation to keep monasticism relevant? What is monasticism without religion? Without celibacy? Without separation of men and women?

Monasticism vs. Intentional/Spiritual Community

Secular monasticism has the potential to combine best aspects of spirituality and intentional community, without the shortcomings of both. Intentional community brings the resilience, teamwork, and social fabric of having a common vision, and has an emergent eco-efficiency that more siloed family-unit living lacks. Spiritual community further narrows the vision and the goals of living together, and often grows out of a set of moral, philosophical and practical teachings that can ease some of the typical problems of living together. On the other hand, where intentional community often fails is in having a lack of resolve and depth, lack of discipline, disparate motivation, and the positive and negative results of exchanging efficiency for egalitarianism. Spiritual communities are often disordered and lack sufficient governance, transparency and accountability to protect the individual community members and the sustainability of the community as a whole. In the latter, it could be said that “spiritual authority” is not sufficiently isolated from “municipal authority.”5

Many of the early Western monasteries also conflated municipal authority & spiritual authority in an almost guru-like figure (e.g. compare the early, very vertical Rule of the Master to the relatively horizontal Rule of Benedict that followed it). Yet in the religious monastic traditions that have survived 1500 years in the West, final spiritual authority is almost entirely held by a set of texts (which are often canonical and unquestionable), and municipal authority is held by a person or group of people who have been chosen by the community to lead. The key is this: the Abbess is the role-model who leads by example, but is not herself the Christ. She has final decision-making authority, but is accountable to the monastic rule and the vows she has taken, which are often the same as other community members. The same holds to varying degrees for monasteries in Theravadan, Tibetan, Zen, Vedantan, Taoist traditions.

Examples

The members of a secular monastery might take up residence in a building that is ostensibly no different from the monasteries that monks have been living in for thousands of years. They might vow to wake up at 6:30am, chant 5 times a day, meditate for 3 hours a day, eat some meals together in silence while a text is read, work at a trade for 4 hours a day, and yet could be mixed-gender, only voluntarily celibate, and devote themselves to a highest goal of their own choosing (e.g. God, dharma, self-knowledge, wisdom, or the perfect blueberry pie).

Or by entering a certain co-housing community, you would take a temporary vow (perhaps for 2 years minimum) to wake up at 7am, meditate together 3 times a day, eat dinner together and read a certain poem together at the end of the day. For several weeks a year, the community might invite a teacher from outside and transform itself into a silent meditation retreat center for its members.

One living example of secular monasticism is art monasticism.

Secular monasticism that combines monasticism and technology is called monastech.

Notes:

  1. “Between 1978 and 2004—nearly the entire span of John Paul II’s pontificate—the number of men in monastic and religious orders (not including priests) decreased by 46% in Europe and 30% in the Americas, while the number of women decreased by 39% and 27%, respectively. Compare this to the trend in the global South: During the same period, men in monastic and religious orders increased by 48% in Africa and 39% in Asia, with women increasing on those two continents by 62% and 64%.” http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/re-monking-the-church-new-monasticism/ ↩
  2. (By “secular” I mean everything that isn’t the domain of one particular religion; spirituality in general and the interfaith movement are thus considered secular). ↩
  3. http://wiki.ic.org/wiki/Intentional_Communities ↩
  4. http://otherhood.org/elements-of-monasticism/ ↩
  5. Vinay Gupta – http://openenlightenment.org/?p=475 ↩