Bigger Picture, Narrower View

An Open Response to Stephen Batchelor’s 

"Buddhism and Sex: The Bigger Picture"

Stephen,

I was very disappointed by your essay.  

In the name of considering “the bigger picture”, you side-step the issue of misconduct and focus on the doctrinal elements that, you say, enable ethical transgressions in Buddhist institutions.  You do not attempt to define teacher misconduct or circumscribe abusive behavior.  Instead you posit “beliefs” as the origin of the problem, and promote Secular Buddhism (your brand) as the solution.

While I agree with you that institutionally entrenched inequalities may “facilitate and legitimate” abusive behavior, they cannot make Buddhist teachers abusive, and getting rid of them cannot protect Buddhist students from abuse.  Institutional inequalities do not cause sexual abuse any more than inequalities in families cause incest.  That is because, contrary to what you claim, inequalities are not the “core issue”.  Exploitation is.  The key to dismantling sexual abuse lies not in getting rid of inequalities but in naming and stopping their exploitation, and then removing the perpetrator from his position of authority.

You maintain that power disparities stem from beliefs in the teacher’s enlightenment and students’ submissiveness, a “two-tier model of authority” that, you say, has become entrenched in Buddhism as an “organized religion”.  You blame this model for “the majority of cases of abuse” insofar as it provides what you call “sexual opportunities” for Buddhist teachers.  

First of all, sexual misconduct is not about “lust unbidden” any more than rape is.  It is a form of assault and/or exploitation that uses sex.  Second, the power disparity between a Buddhist teacher and student exists by virtue of the former being entrusted with the student’s mind, heart, soul or psyche.  It is similar to the power disparity that exists between University professors and their students, therapists and their patients, lawyers and their clients, parents and their children.  It is rooted, not in the teacher’s “mystical-ontological” authority, as you claim, but in the trust he holds by way of his privileged position in a fiduciary relationship.  The potential for exploitation is built into this relationship, ipso facto, without a teacher having to be additionally empowered by beliefs in his magic woo-woo, elevated to the status of a “guru” or perceived as “enlightened”.  How much power a student relinquishes may indeed depend on beliefs and the nature of the relationship s/he has with the teacher, but the abuse of that power is a consequence of the teacher’s beliefs and behavior, not the student’s, and should never be blamed on the latter.

On the subject of blaming the victim, your third point reads like an attempt to discredit reports of those coming forward to denounce their teachers. You say:

3.  The Buddha himself was accused of having sexual intercourse with the female ascetics Sundari and Cinca.  Tradition explains that these accusations were unfounded, and used by those jealous of his success to discredit him. Having sex with one’s students is not a contemporary issue that has only started to rear its head in the simultaneously permissive and puritanical societies of the West.  It is simply what human beings in positions of authority are liable to do or be accused of doing.

Could you be more explicit about what you are insinuating here and perhaps also explain the relevance of this point to your “bigger picture”?  You could begin by naming one contemporary example of a teacher being falsely accused by a student.

The most blatant lacuna of your essay is that it cannot be applied to exploitation in secular Buddhist institutions, a situation that is not so uncommon.  In my particular case, for example, misconduct occurred at the hands of a teacher who did not flaunt a title, don robes, pose as enlightened, demand my submission, or threaten post-mortem consequences in another lifetime. He called himself a “meditation consultant”.  In fact, his teaching model was set up to consciously and deliberately get away from the hierarchical structures of more traditional Buddhist organizations and proffered “a path outside established institutions”.  Everything about this presentation passed the secular test.  Nevertheless, misconduct occurred and has never been acknowledged by him or his organization.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your essay does not provide a map for concretely dealing with teacher misconduct.  Maybe that is because you do not really want to do anything about it.

Last July I wrote to you for support in my attempt to confront my teacher about his misconduct with me and another student, and you responded that you were “a long time friend of Ken McLeod, so may not be entirely neutral in this particular case.”  You said you would inquire about his organization’s grievance policy and possibly, if “appropriate”, discuss the matter with him personally.  You did not get back to me after that and, as far as I know, never acted on this.  In the meantime, the other student and I were left to our own devices, there was never any adequate grievance procedure set up by Unfettered Mind, and Ken McLeod is still teaching.  

You had an opportunity to do something about teacher misconduct in a real-life situation but instead penned this theoretical treatment that further obscures the issues.  Could it be that your allegiance to an old boys’ network is getting in the way of concrete action?  Or have you simply positioned yourself as an innocent bystander?  Either way, a passive gaze, even one that purports to embrace the bigger picture, enables an exploitative teacher far more than any special status attributed to him by students.  

The real enabler of teacher misconduct, Stephen, is not the sacralisation of Buddhism, but the same perverse dynamics that operate in other, secular or religious, institutions when they are spear-headed by a narcissist cosseted by sycophants whose mutually gratifying affiliation blinds them to the harm they are causing.  The answer lies not in secularization but quite simply in raising individual awareness about the signs and pitfalls of narcissistic leadership, groupthink and cult behavior.