Putting Buddhist Leaders on a Pedestal.

It isn't a secret that some in the west have an infatuation with Buddhism. It is still relatively new to the majority of Americans, having only really been absorbed by the white populations that make up most of the country since the 1950s. So, it still is in a bit of a honeymoon phase where for some in these white populations put the teachers on pedestals. For my non-American readers that means thinking that a certain person is perfect, so much so that you're willing to look past obvious faults because you're blinded by hero worship.

This is fueled I believe in large part by the false perception by some in the west that Buddhist teachers are all enlightened and that thus, they can do nothing wrong. This leads to schisms in some Buddhist communities between those who are deluded by the charm and title of a monk, and those who see that same teacher's obvious bad behavior. I won't go into the particulars but a prime example of this in the Zen Buddhist community is the case of Eido Shimano.

Since Buddhism in Asia has been around for millennia, it seems a healthy dose of skepticism and discernment has fermented. Take for example the case of the morally bankrupt monk, Osel Tendzin as brought to us by Katy Butler's great article titled, "Encountering the Shadow in Buddhist America," Pressure from the community is very important in controlling behavior in Tibetan communities," said Dr. Barbara Aziz, an internationally known social . . . who has spent 20 years doing fieldwork among Tibetans. . . . "In Tibetan society, they expect more of the guy they put on the pedes­tal . . . if such a scandal [as Osel Tendzin's] had happened in Tibet [he] might have been driven from the valley."

Furthermore, Tibetans may "demonstrate all kinds of reverence to a [teacher], but they won't necessarily do what he says. I see far more discernment among my Tibetan and Nepali friends," (said Dr. Aziz, in the Butler article), "than among Westerners."

These quotes were used in an excellent article by Russ Wellen found on The Buddhist Channel website. Ms. Butler goes onto add a quote by the Dalai Lama about Sangha teachers and monks that I think should be read by all western Buddhists, "I recommend never adopting the attitude toward one's Spiritual teacher of seeing his or her every action as divine or noble. . . . if one has a teacher who is not qualified, who is engaging in unsuitable or wrong behavior, then it is appropriate for the student to criticize that behavior."

I am reminded yet again here of the beautiful, yet simple and widely applicable Kalama Sutra that forms the foundation of my Buddhist practice. In particular, Buddha's charter on free inquiry. It is what grounds me when I find myself getting too caught up in the dogma and cult of personalities that sometimes form in Buddhist circles:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, [the people Buddha was addressing were the Kalamas] to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.(emphasis added by James).

Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

The commentary from the Sinahlese monk, Soma Thero, that prefaces the charter adds additional reasoning as to why the Kalama Sutra is so fundamental for myself and many Buddhists today who come to the practice from a tradition of the scientific method. For it is difficult sometimes to access the validity of a belief system without a standard to judge it by. The charter in the Kalama Sutra provides just that to seekers:

"The Kalama Sutta, which sets forth the principles that should be followed by a seeker of truth, and which contains a standard things are judged by, belongs to a framework of the Dhamma; the four solaces taught in the sutta point out the extent to which the Buddha permits suspense of judgment in matters beyond normal cognition. The solaces show that the reason for a virtuous life does not necessarily depend on belief in rebirth or retribution, but on mental well-being acquired through the overcoming of greed, hate, and delusion."

UPDATE: Of course, this is not to say that we shouldn't expect our leaders to adhere to moral standards but that we shouldn't allow the misdeeds of some leaders to drive us away from the Buddhadharma. It is the Dharma that is enlightened--not necessarily teachers and monks. It is a reminder as well to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism when evaluating Dharma teachers before we submit to their advice and authority.

~Peace to all beings~

Skepticism in Buddhism is Good.

I think skepticism is very admirable, and rather unusual. The history of the world reveals that people are drawn to those who provide a strong, uncompromising teaching. We're drawn to those who say, "This is it, and everyone else is wrong." Certainly we see this pattern in contemporary politics, but we also see abuse of this sort within spiritual circles. It makes you wonder: Do we really want freedom? Can we handle the responsibility? Or would we just prefer to have an impressive teacher, someone who can give us the answers and do all the hard work for us?

–Larry Rosenberg, from "The Right to Ask Questions," Tricycle, Fall 2003

James: Buddhism is by nature a skeptical belief system. Buddha was very much a skeptical being who discovered enlightenment because of a healthy questioning of the accepted explanations of reality at the time. He dared question the great Brahman leaders of the day and was thus seen as a rebel of sorts. We are descendants of that tradition as taught by the Buddha within the Kalama Sutra where he teaches and even encourages thinking for yourself and not believing something if it doesn't ring true through your own experiences. The Kalama Sutra is the keystone of my Buddhist beliefs because without the freedom of inquiry and acceptance of differences as a foundation; Buddhism is just another intolerant, rigid, controlling belief system.

I feel that Buddhism treats me like an adult and allows me greater freedom. Whereas in the brand of religion that I was raised with (Mormon Christianity) it felt the complete opposite. I felt like it saw me as a child not to be trusted with thinking for myself and I felt like I was constantly being talked down to and seen as a threat or "evil" when I questioned the "parents" (church leaders, doctrine, etc). I didn't feel trusted and that made me frustrated, angry, confused, cynical, resentful and ultimately I left feeling completely deceived. I felt like I was being punished for thinking for myself. Of course the monotheist religions, (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) like all forms of religion have their good qualities but for me personally it was too controlling and domineering. It's only natural to feel that way when you don't feel trusted or ever good enough by any group, organization or ideology.

A teacher in Buddhism will give you pointers and advice but you won't be somehow kicked out of Buddhism if you don't follow it word for word or even at all. Unless of course you're a monk but becoming a monastic who actually seeks out such a strict code of living and practicing is a decision made individually for the most part. Even then a monk might be asked to leave the monastery but they are still allowed to practice that form of Buddhism. Whereas in my former, monotheistic religion I felt like everyone was held to such a standard and if you wanted to practice in a less rigid way you were considered weak, inadequate and all too often reprimanded and even excommunicated.

After leaving that religion I was looking for a belief system that was more tolerant for such reasoned scrutiny. As well as allowing for a lot more personal freedom in tailoring the teachings to each person's unique and particular life. I found that in Buddhism, which is anchored in how our karma varies from being to being. Karma demands greater freedom to explore and personalize one's practice. So doubt in Buddhism isn't a "sin" (there is no such thing as sin anyway in Buddhism). In fact doubt can lead to some very powerful insights into spirituality as the exploration is personal and not spoon fed to you. This is not to say that monotheistic religions don't have aspects of personal exploration but it is very limited I have found in comparison to Buddhism.

There are, however, fellow converts in Buddhism that I find from time to time who do practice with similar rigidity, exclusivity and over-bearing reverence, which I saw so much in my monotheistic past. I have found that these people are often former monotheists as well who might have adopted Buddhism but they practice it by the way they use to practice their former religion. I believe that Buddhism isn't just about adopting different beliefs but changing one's entire approach to how religion is practiced.

Addendum: Special thanks to Phillip Ryan over at Tricycle for the quote.