Jump to content

Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rupa zero (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 28 July 2007 (Undid revision 147716225 by 89.242.229.142 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

FWBO Post criticism

This is an attempt by an FWBO supporter to portray the problems at the FWBO as history rather than current. The whole issue remains wide open and to refer to the FWBO 'post criticism' is to infer that the situation no longer exists and things have changed, whereas many would argue that things have not .Of those who have exited the Order of recent, it is certain that the Order's unwillingess to address the question of Sangharakshita'a sexual behaviour figured high on their list of problems. In brief, since the criticism has not stopped, why, for anything other than politically motivated PR, talk of the FWBO post-criticism; they are still in it up to their necks All the best, --Kt66 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that about three people have contributed to this section, and that it has stayed up for so long already, leads me to believe that there are many people who consider the major problems to indeed be history. While the FWBO still has certain aspects that leave people unsatisfied, they are different to the problems experienced in the 1980s. It hurts me that people permanently brand the FWBO as a mysogynistic homoerotic cult because of events that happened over twenty years ago, because I want people to recognise my spiritual practice and that of my peers for what it really is. If you have sources that detail the current issues concerning the fwbo then please provide details and we can get working on a more up-to-date addition to the criticism section. But the post-criticism section is important because things have changed a lot, and because Sangharakshita has in fact discussed the sex issues in an interview.
I also consider it unhelpful to complain about fwbo supporters editing the article. If supporters to do not help to edit this article it will not reach NPOV - it will simply swing to the other end of POV to how it was when it was created. Ideally there would be someone out there who is actually neutral who could help us out. But it doesn't look like that's the case. So the only way forward is for us to work together and not judge each other. I appreciate criticism of the fwbo as it gives me the opportunity to respond in a calm, kind manner. Please appreciate my support of the fwbo as a conscious decision to practice in a way that just happens to be different to you. Rupa zero 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many controversial articles are written largely by critics and supporters of each particular issue. It isn't a problem as long as the neutrality and verifiability criterias are adhered to. The dispute of this article started several years ago when I added the link to FWBO files in "External Link" section, which is usually exempt from verifiability criteria. I had to fight tooth and nail for external links critical to FWBO. I thought the such behaviour was of fanboy (or cult?). I personally think that it is pointless to argue what is or isn't the authentic Buddhism. However, many traditionalist do raise this issue and these views should be part of this article as long as they are cited in verifiable source. Many article grow in size due to the contribution from both sides. Readers can make informed decision as long as attribution is clear and verifiable. You state in your page that you are planing to add proper citation over the summer. I'm happy to wait. Vapour
Thanks for such an amicable reply. I'm filled with hope that we can sort this out eventually. I agree that it's important that people are able to make an informed decision, and if that means the article has to be long and detailed then it's not a problem. However, I do think that eventually we will have to rearrange the article so that it is somehow easier to digest. But it's not urgent. Rupa zero 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it is impossible for either of the two camps in this to write objectively and the tendency to edit out pro and anti statements is a clear sign of a lack of objectivity on both sides.To suggest that swinging from one extreme to another will eventually result in neutrality is enaive to say the least. It is not appropriate IMO to refer to the 2005 interview because it is not verifiable until it can be seen; why not post it on the web?? Again reference to Vishvapani's article 'Growing Pains' is pointless-it is bound to have an element of bias within it because of the position he holds. It cannot therefore possibly be objective. I think this section ought to be left out-even the title 'Post Criticism' is subtle propaganda. [[User:Mahblahblah] 21:03 16 June 2007

You have a good point here. It is going to be difficult to reach neutrality. But we have to keep trying. If the articles on Israel can have no neutrality banner then so can something as tiny and insignificant as the FWBO. Let's get rid of the 'Post criticism' section for now as it's causing too much trouble. I can add a section later that serves the same purpose while being actually academically sourced by third parties. And I object to your use of the term, 'propaganda,' it's kind of hurtful since that section was added by normal people, not spin artists. Rupa zero 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda: 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view'.OED-Sounds about right!'Post criticism' is subtly misleading information used to promote a point of view. Sorry if it offends! 'Political'-'acting in the interests of status '.OED 'Post criticism' can be said to be attempting to do just that!I guess I am just not eloquent enough! No intent to offend, only to point out undertones.Mahablahblah 10:55 pm 19 June 2007

I have scholarly, third-party sources that confirm that there has been some form of reaction to the criticism, albeit insufficient to address the underlying issues that bring so much hate. When I've finished the reading I'm working on and I'm ready to add a section on the matter that uses information only from those sources, what subheading would you prefer? 'Post' merely means after. Rupa zero 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'after' and, as evidenced from this page, criticism goes on NOW so it can't be referred to as 'post criticism'. I see nothing wrong with The FWBO Today.'Hate'? Woah there; don't believe everything you are told. Some of the people involved in the 'outing' of the FWBO are motivated by concern for others and the future of Buddhism. When, in Dharamsala in the early 90's, the Dalai Lama advised those who were concerned about gurus abusing their disciples to 'name names in newspapers' (Kulananda was present), do you really think he was motivated by 'hate'?? No, I think many Buddhists are concerned about the FWBO because they consider them to be a threat to individuals and indeed to the existence of genuine Buddhism-I remember somewhere their being compared to the cuckoo. I don't know if your up on nature but the cuckoo produces eggs that are exact replicas of whatever bird whose nest it lays its eggs in and as soon as it breaks out of the egg, the cuckoo chick destroys all the other eggs (or something like that!)See the analogy? So, concern for the well being of individuals and Buddhism seems to be a big factor here. Read the introduction to the FWBO Files;it isn't all lies, after all, is it? Maybe it would be good for you to talk to some people from outside the Order!I wonder, do you talk to anyone in Buddhism, outside the Order? (Please,not the NKT!!!)Some people are genuinely concerned about the effect of the FWBO's approach will have on the future of Buddhism and they care about people; that's not hate!! I, for instance, feel concern for one so obviously young as yourself, who it seems, has only ever encountered Buddhism through the Order's eyes and yet seem so keen to vehemently defend them. What does that say about the effect your association has had on your facility to keep an open mind? Mahablahblah 7:36 June 23 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.21.233 (talk • contribs) 19:36, June 23, 2007 (UTC).

Hi there 80.2.21.233. Could you please sign your comments properly? Are you using this discussion page to try to convince someone they are on the wrong spiritual track? Andkaha(talk) 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOH! Are you using this discussion page to try to convince someone they are on the right spiritual track? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.21.233 (talk • contribs) 17:35, June 24, 2007 (UTC).

Please sign properly. And to answer your question, no why would I? The purpose of this discussion page is to discuss the contents of the article. Andkaha(talk) 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly sign things properly when I am fluent in the medium Andreas. Perhaps you can direct me since you write so frequently elsewhere, I am sure you know the ropes?

Signing of comments on talk pages on the Wikipedia is described in the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline document. In short, use four consecutive tildes ('~'). Also, I would recommend that you create a proper Wikipedia user identity for yourself instead of writing anonymously, see Help:Logging in. This would enable me to write comments like these on you user talk page instead of here, which is not really the right place for them. I also believe it is proper manners to use Wiki user names, not real names, when addressing others. Andkaha(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address your comment, I raised the issue of whether your younger Cambridge Order colleague had any experience of Buddhism, outside the FWBO (or even FWBO Cambridge?), because it seems to me that she frequently falls prey to biased wording without intending to do so. 'Approach' becomes 'innovation', for example.You are probably aware that any good academic piece should not be written from an 'insider' viewpoint.

I have no order colleagues in Cambridge or elsewhere — I am not an WBO order member. If you read RZ's talk page (good reading), you'll see she is involved with other Buddhists outside of FWBO, and that she's probably more of a level-headed academic than I ever was. Andkaha(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wish is to either neutralize the content of the page or ask Wiki to take it down. The page is filled with so much propaganda from both camps so as to render it a million miles from objective.At times it seems more like publicity for the FWBO than objective analysis and at other times it is little better than sniping at the Order.Once again, 'Last man standing wins' is the order of the day. Mahablahblah User:80.2.21.233|80.2.21.233] 19:53 24 June 2007

At the moment, I agree with what you are saying here. Andkaha(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BTW, 'I have no order colleagues in Cambridge or elsewhere — I am not an WBO order member' Are you saying you do not know RZ? Haven't you encountered her at CUBS/CBS??? Either way, lets get this page down and stop all this nonsense, don't you think? (80.2.21.233 12:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Mahablahblah User:80.2.21.233|80.2.21.233[reply]

Dearest 80.2.21.233, AFAIK RZ is no order member either. Maybe I misunderstood your notion of "colleague"? Indeed, maybe my knowledge of English isn't really up to scratch? We don't work together, if that's what you mean... And do see to getting yourself a proper Wiki user name. Andkaha(talk) 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love and peace man!I think you'll find RZ practices with the FWBO-see her self-descrition on her user page'She is a first year student of Japanese Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge and a practising buddhist in the FWBO.'(80.2.21.233 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)}MBB[reply]

Oh my, I had no idea people had been talking about me. I'm not an order member. I'm not narrow minded either. As I explicitly say on my userpage, I have come to my own conclusion that the fwbo in which I practice does not resemble the criticism levelled against it. In the words of Russell Brand, 'I likes it.' But I think about this criticism very often. I talk about it regularly and openly with OMs and other mitras. I have just finished reading scholarly sources that look intensely at the fwbo and give criticism where criticism is due. If you think that I am burying my head in the sand, or worse, that I have been brainwashed, you are dead wrong. And I am hurt that if you had such concerns about my welfare, you did not approach me on my usertalk page about them and instead discussed it here. And I would never call well placed, balanced criticism hatred. Hysterical scaremongering is something I find hateful, but explaining where I see the line to be would take a long time. As for Andkaha, I do not know him as far as I am aware, though I would like to thank him for the compliment and the defense. Mahablahblah, I agree with a lot of what you've said and I look forward to working with you. I agree that this article is getting bogged down by praise and blame. Something more neutral is possible - I've read neutral accounts myself four or five times over. Rupa zero 21:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


possibly scholarly sources for FWBO

  • David N. Kay Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, pages 10,11,200 (Bell's study); 96,125,139,205,213-214, allegations of sexual abuse page 4; essentialist approach 20,22; financial mechanisms 12; groups and number of members 25; Mellor's study; 9,10,13,19,11,141; similarities with OBC 204; ISBN 0415297656, Routledge; ISBN 0415297656
  • "Researching New Religious Movements: responses and redefinitions" by Elisabeth Arweck, pages 64, 124; ISBN 041527754X, Routledge
  • "Action Dharma: New Studies in Engaged Buddhism" Charles S. Prebish, Damien Keown; pages 17, 231; ISBN 0700715932; Routledge
  • "New religious movements", Jamie Cresswell, Bryan R. Wilson; pages 144,153,156; ISBN 0415200490; Routledge
  • "The New Evangelists: Recruitment Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements", Peter Clarke, King's College (University of London). Department for the History and Philosophy of Religion; ISBN 0905788605
  • "New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World", Peter Bernard Clarke; pages 63-64, 11, 87, 89; ISBN 0415257484
  • Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-39515-1 (the most actual research which in general includes all other sources available; sometimes the author weights the statements of the followers more than the critics...)
  • Cozort, Daniel (2003). The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0

with google-book-search you can almost get the pages without buying those expensive but well researched books.

Online Research Articles you'll find here

maybe you'll find also here: http://www.buddhistethics.org/search.html --Kt66 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

I'm finding the whole criticism section a bit garbled and difficult to make sense of. It seems to conflate criticism of the order structure with issues of personal behaviour by Sangharakshita and a doctrinal issue over sexual relationships.

Shouldn't the personal behaviour issues be in the article on Sangharakshita, rather than here?

Is there nothing more recent than the early 90's with respect to power relationships, the Grunaid article appears to have been reflective back, rather than a discussion of a current issue?

The doctrinal issue is very confused. As I read it, in the article, a paper was presented to the conference but nothing was taken forward from that paper in the outcomes of the conference itself. I don't actually see whether this is a criticism of the order or the individual who wrote the paper?

TIA

ALR 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think lots of people wish to make that point, in wikipedia and outside of it. That's the most painful thing about the criticism, I find: that a lot the focus of the criticism dates back at least ten years, usually a lot more than that, and describes a situation that just doesn't exist today. Buddhism teaches impermanence yet people talk as if the fwbo was static. Some people have assumptions that the fwbo is a heirarchical organisation with Sangharakshita as the big boss, and that therefore his actions are the actions of the whole movement. My point here is that it's not the article that's garbled. It's the criticism itself which is garbled. I therefore can't see the criticism section being amended either to reflect present circumstances or to reflect the reality that the sex and power issues at hand have changed dramatically. That would be original research, and would not reflect the nature of criticism against the fwbo. Rupa zero 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know FWBO changed into a healthy group. Friends of the Theravada order in England told it to me. Scientific sources may reflect that and the article should be balanced in all ways. So when there is a FWBO site which reflects the past critisism and the actions FWBO has taken from it, it can also be added. I added a lot of scientific sources above and they will contain balanced material for the article. It would be very nice to have a proper and fair article. --Kt66 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that list - if no-one has started working through it yet I may well use my summer to do so. I would prefer it if someone not involved in the fwbo read through the stuff, because I'm going to find it hard to detach myself enough to write an encyclopedic article. I'm merely willing to step in if I'm needed. Rupa zero 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it now. Rupa zero 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sources for quotations about the FWBO

The following is a bibliography of published and unpublished writings which mention the FWBO, which should help to provide some substance to this article. I hope everyone finds it useful. mahaabaala 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barrett D. V. (2001) The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions, Cassell, 307-310.
  • Batchelor S. (1993) The Awakening of the West, HarperCollins, London.
  • Baumann M (1996) ‘Buddhist Dissemination in the West: Phases, Orders and Integrative Buddhism’, Day Internacionales Asienforum 27/ 3-4: 345-62.
  • (1998) ‘Working in the Right Spirit: The Application of Buddhist Right Livelihood in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order,’ The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 5.
  • (2000) ‘Work as Dharma Practice: Right Livelihood Cooperatives in the FWBO,’ in Queen CS (Ed.) Engaged Buddhism in the West, Wisdom Publications, pp. 372-93.
  • (2002) ‘Buddhism in Europe: Past, Present, Prospects.” In Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, edited by M. Baumann and C. Prebish, 85-105. London: University of California Press.
  • Bell S. (1996) ‘Change and Identity in the Western Buddhist Order,’ Scottish, Journal of Religious Studies vol. XVII no 2, pp.87-107.
  • (1997) Review of Extending the Hand of Friendship, The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, March 1997.
  • (2002) ‘Scandals in Emerging Western Buddhism’ in Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, edited by M. Baumann and C. Prebish, 230-242. London: University of California Press.
  • Bluck, R. (2006) British Buddhism: Teachings, Practices and Developments, Routledge, Oxford, 2006.
  • Chen C.M. (ed. Khantipalo) (1967) Buddhist Meditation Systematic and Practical, Free Distribution.
  • Clarke P. (2005) Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, London, 2005.
  • Coleman J.W. (2001) ‘The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition,’ OUP, Oxford,
  • Conze E. (1979) Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic, Samizdat Publishing Co.
  • Cush D. (1996) ‘British Buddhism and the New Age’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 11(2):195-208
  • Ganguly D. ‘Yet Another English ‘Gift’: The Role of English Bhikkhus in Indian Dalit Buddhist Conversions (1970-2000)’ Paper for the 15 Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia Conference, 2004, http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/Ganguly-D-ASAA2004.pdf
  • Harris E. (1998) What Buddhists Believe, Oneworld, Oxford.
  • Harvey P. (1990) An Introduction to Buddhism, CUP, Cambridge.
  • Henry P. (2006) ‘The Sociological Implications for Contemporary Buddhism in the United Kingdom: Socially Engaged Buddhism, a Case Study,’ Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Volume 13, 2006
  • Humphreys C. (1978) Both Sides of the Circle, Allen & Unwin, London.
  • Inaba K. (2005) Altruism in New Religious Movements: The Jesus Army and the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in Britain, University Education Press.
  • Kulananda (1992) 'Protestant Buddhism' [A Response to Philip Mellor], Religion 22
  • Mellor P. ‘Protestant Buddhism? The Cultural Translation of Buddhism in England,’ Religion, 21(1): 73-93.
  • ‘The FWBO and Tradition: a Reply to Kulananda, Religion, 22, 104-107.
  • Olle H. (2001) ‘The Lotus in the West,’ Sheffield Online Papers in Social Research, No 4, July 2001, http://www.shef.ac.uk/socstudies/Shop/olle.pdf
  • Ratnaprabha (1987) ‘A Re-emergence of Buddhism: the case of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order', in Clarke P, (ed.) The New Evangelists,:Recruitment and Aims of New Religious Movements, London, Ethnographica, 57-75.
  • Rawlinson A. (1997) The Book of Enlightened Masters, Open Court, Chicago.
  • Smith, S. (2003) “Widening the Circle: Communities of Color and Western Buddhist Convert Sanghas.” In Action Dharma: New Studies in Engaged Buddhism, edited by C. Queen, C. Prebish and D. Keown, 220-236. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
  • Snelling J. (1987) The Buddhist Handbook, Rider, London.
  • Sponberg A. (1996) Engaged Buddhism, Ed. Queen C. and King S. SUNY, New York.

Unpublished Papers

  • Bell S. (1991) ‘Buddhism in Britain - Development and Adaptation,’ doctoral thesis, University of Durham.
  • Clarke P, ‘New Religions in Britain and Western Europe: In Decline?’ paper presented at day seminar on the methods and aims of evangelization in contemporary society with special references to New Religious Movements, Kings College, London, June 14th 1985.
  • McAra S, ‘The Land of the Stupa and the Sacred Puriri: Creating Buddhism in the Tararu Valley, New Zealand,’ MA Thesis University of Auckland. [about to be published by Uni of Hawaii Press]
  • Scott D, ‘Modern British Buddhism: Patterns and Directions, seminar paper to The Buddhist Forum,’ SOAS.
  • (1996) The Friends of The Western Buddhist Order: British Buddhism in Transition?,


Consistent Standards?

Editor Andkaha recently (5 June 2007) deleted a paragraph from the article, saying that it was a 'Highly charged addition without cited source'. While 'Highly charged' may be Andkaha's personal opinion, they are quite right to say the paragraph lacked a cited source (and therefore failed to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion).

It was, of course, my personal opinion. The text also contained four unsourced statements and rather than adding these to the article's other unsourced material, I opted for deleting the whole edit. Andkaha(talk) 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, most of the existing article also lacks a cited source. As far as I can see, the major part of the article (up to the start of the Criticism section) cites no reliable sources of information about the FWBO at all. It seems to be a promotional article or advert for the FWBO, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

To me, it seems like a flame fest between supporters of two teams. Andkaha(talk) 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that editors will come forward to rewrite the sections which lack a cited source. Otherwise, the article must be a candidate for deletion, or at least for substantial pruning. EmmDee 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned above, I'm making it a summer project to read academic works on the topic and get everything sourced. After it's sourced, let's talk about whether it is promotional in tone. Rupa zero 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I've done it. Rupa zero 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

Someone anonymous made a rather impassioned edit that made the article even less neutral. Also, it was unsourced, and phrases such as, "Sangharakshita is still head of the order in anything but name, shows how far the fwbo has learned from the past," seems to be either an opinion or original research.

The same could be said of the section to which the latest edit was added. I will admit responsibility for at least half of that section and admit to its failings. If people want, we could get rid for now.

As a side note, I'm about halfway through the necessary reading for adding citations to this article. In my reading I have come across some insightful and neutral analysis of how far the fwbo has learned from the past. After I've added the necessary citations, would it be okay for me to add some notes on this analysis? It's far more valuable than the existing post-criticism section. Rupa zero 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first section was so adverty, it had to go. It really is time to stop referring to the FWBO 'post criticism'. In my experience, the criticism is ongoing and the title is a not very subtle way of an OM/sympathizer trying to put distance between the Order and its past. So, leave it out, unless you can prove that everyone in the Buddhist and cult awareness world have changed their opinions. Mahablahblah80.2.21.233 17:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EmmDee and criticism at top

EmmDee added a couple of well chewed paragraphs of criticism at the top of the article this evening. I think they should be moved into the criticism section, if they are to be kept at all (they have been on the page before but have obviously been deleted over time). The Stephen Batchelor quote is BTW totally out of date as far as I'm aware (there's no "rigid hierarchy"). ... and I can do some questioning of the "leader" if you wish :-) I find myself doing it quite often (but maybe I don't count as I'm not a member of the WBO?). Also, the 'Student Direct' quote also seems to be outdated by now. The FWBO do not "recruit" people (I'm not sure this has ever happened apart from for office positions at centres etc.), and people looking to becoming mitras are made aware of the problems that the FWBO has been going through before they are allowed to become mitras. It is a process entirely driven by the mitra-wannabe, not by the FWBO, and within it, questioning is certainly encouraged. Mitras are, and has always been (AFAIK), free to leave or disassociate themselves from the FWBO at any time (see e.g. [1]). Andkaha(talk) 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the age of a quote doesn't make it irrelevant. If so, why refer to scripture? Come on; let's get this page down so we can all stop getting sidetracked with polemic about this passing show and get on with resting in mindspace??If we don't, this tit for tat stuff can go on forever. I admit, I am biased against the Order-Why not admit you are biased in favour-you seem determined to portray yourself as neutral but I am afraid the content of your writing betrays your position as an apologist. Since nobody who writes this stuff has a NPOV, whats the point? We will always be trapped in this duality.Aren't we supposed to be going beyond such stuff?Or do you like conflict?(80.2.21.233 19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)) MBlabla[reply]

I just noticed - the Bluck thing is wrong. The 1400 members thing is only the wbo, not the fwbo. Rupa zero 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) SO HOW MANY FWBO MEMBERS ARE THERE IN UK?[reply]

The question is further complicated by the fact that some people say that the FWBO doesn't have members as such, its just an informal association of individuals. From a legal point of view, apparently you have to be a member of the WBO before you can be a member of the FWBO [2], though not all WBO members are also FWBO members. EmmDee 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, that was interesting. I think the point of that was a legal thing to do with charity status, rather than counting members to compare to other buddhist movements. You're right, it's far too complicated. Can we forget about membership figures, it doesn't seem to be that important anyway. Rupa zero 10:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's next?

I have added citations to most of the 'citation needed' points. There are three in the criticism section that I cannot cite - in fact, one uncited statement, that criticism has been mostly focused on Bhante and other senior order members, is demonstrably untrue. If more statements in the article need to be cited then either let me know personally or add the 'citation needed,' thingymabob and I'll get right on it.

I would like to get on with rearranging this article so that it makes sense. I don't want to seem aggressive, but I thought I should put my cards on the table and say how exactly I think this article needs to be changed;

  1. All criticism should be reserved for the criticism section, for purely stylistic reasons. This includes doctrinal criticism, such as the issue of whether all buddhist schools have core things to be shared between them. This would be consistent with articles on the fwbo in specialist encyclopedias such as the 'encyclopedia of new religious movements,' and 'The encyclopdia of new religions.'
  2. The first half has to be merely descriptive. The tone has previously been noticeably promotional. Basically, the bit before criticism should be neither positive nor negative. No assessment should be attempted in this section whatsoever.
  3. There are a few sections of the bit of the article before criticism that are unnecessary, such as the chronology, and the section on diversity.
  4. Other sections should be combined, such as activities and practice, or 'The FWBO after S' and 'The FWBO today.'
  5. The criticism section should have different subheadings if it is to include more fundamental doctrinal points. In other articles that I have read, criticism is often split into sexuality, authority, mysogyny, and the doctrinal stuff.

Please mention any other needs that you think should be met by further edits to this article. Please argue with me about what I have written above. I am more than willing to do the ground work for this and have it picked apart by you guys until we're all equally happy - or equally disappointed, if that's what it takes. Rupa zero 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Is it necessary to have a seperate criticism section? If it is necessary for some reason, shouldn't the other section be titled 'non-critical', or whatever the opposite of criticism is? Flattery section?

ISTM that, in the case of a controversial topic like the FWBO, the article should attempt to be balanced and NPOV overall, with pro and anti pov's fairly evenly spread through the article. Banishing criticism to a section towards the end doesn't really help to acheive this. Particularly with the section that Rupa Zero moved, which questions whether the FWBO is a bona-fide Buddhist organisation, which is a fairly fundamental question in relation to this article, and so should be mentioned fairly early on, so that readers are informed what the issues are.

Confining criticisms to a seperate criticism section might be made to work, if the 'the bit before criticism' was a lot shorter (currently its about 2/3 of the article's text), and was genuinely neutral and non-promotional in tone, which it isn't at present. Also, there is little point in effectively duplicating material which can fairly easily be found on the FWBO's own website, a balanced selection of reliable third-party sources is what is needed.

If the introductory bit before criticism was much more concise and balanced, then I might be persuaded of the merits of confining criticism to the criticism section. Or alternatively, if there was a concise, neutral introduction and then a new 'controversy' section, that might be a workable way of structuring the material.

But as the article stands at present, I strongly disagree that 'All criticism should be reserved for the criticism section', unless and until the rest of the article meets the standards of impartiality (and conciseness?) that I imagine the specialist encyclopedias that RZ mentions would display. EmmDee 13:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other changes I described would make the first section shorter, and I agree with you that the tone is too positive. I guarantee you that if I do the edit, the first section will be a lot shorter. I think we can phrase things so that they allude to criticisms that will later be described in more detail. For example, one source I read says that the fwbo 'uses buddist teachings,' which I presume would be more to your taste than, 'Is a buddhist school.' I know you don't want it to sound too rosy by leaving criticism until later, but I really think that you have to describe what the fwbo is before you analyse its merits. Rupa zero 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the first section reads like, 'The fwbo says this, but...' it will overall sound very negative. Similarly, I don't think we should keep the 'yes but's in the criticism section. I think each half needs to stand on its own without being undermined by the other side. I've looked around at other controversial topics on wikipedia, and the description first, criticism later form stands with those. For example, the idf, nkt, and even scientology. Rupa zero 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out 'Children of God' if you think you've got it bad! Or what about 'Heaven's Gate'? and NLP? Or Opus Dei? All mention the word 'cult' in the first section-at least your only a NRM

I checked out all of those. Most of them have, 'need to be rewritten' banners or have neutrality banners. Opus Dei doesn't mention cult until the last paragraph of the introduction, and then it's brief and tidy. Rupa zero 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FWBO article has banners too; the difference is it doesn't mention the word 'cult'. Big hug! Perhaps the definition of New Religious Movement is disturbing? Talk to Bluck!...Again! Peace sister Zoya

Looking at the Scientology article for example, yes it does follow the 'description first, criticism later' form, but it also includes a brief description of the criticism in the intro section (in the 4 short paragraphs before the Contents panel): 'Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception ... etc.' And the description/criticism sections are of about equal length
Also, there is a seperate Scientology controversy article, with a shortish 'COS's replies to its critics' [3] at the end. Not sure if we want to follow that part of the format as well
You say 'you have to describe what the fwbo is before you analyse its merits.' [0r otherwise]. Well yes, but that's easier said than done, since opinions on what the fwbo is apparently vary from: 'a broad-based, eclectic Dharma community that engages with teachings from the whole Buddhist tradition' through to 'an abusive, questionably Buddhist cult' [4], which is quite a wide spread. So I think you have to describe both what the FWBO is, and what the criticism is, before going on to analyse the merits of the respective positions.
So I think that the Scientology-type article format, of a shortish (4 para or so) neutral introduction, followed by a genuinely 'merely descriptive', non-promotional, neither positive nor negative, description of the FWBO, and then by a similar non-promotional description of the criticisms, could work, if all the descriptions were properly sourced (and preferably in the form of direct quotes rather than possibly imprecise precis).
The example you quote: 'one source I read says that the fwbo 'uses buddist teachings,' which I presume would be more to your taste than, 'Is a buddhist school.' - perhaps illustrates the benefit of direct quotes rather than precis. Reliable (media or academic) sources tend to choose their words very carefully, knowing their reputations may be at stake. 'uses buddhist teachings' is more objective and neutral than 'Is a buddhist school'. (I don't think its just a question of my personal taste btw.)
Maybe you could post your proposed new neutral text (possibly in sections) here on the talk page first, so it can be discussed by other editors, before being put on the article page. It would be good to avoid the 'flame fest between supporters of two teams' (as Andkaha described it). EmmDee 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you - sorry for not being more clear, I thought a neutral introduction would be a given as an introduction should summarise the whole article. New article written below - I haven't added the source references in as I don't think the ref function will work on a talk page. Facts that I can source have an asterisk beside them. All of the sources are third-party scholarly sources - if the only source available is first party I consider the statement unsourced but true (ie FWBO material or anti-cult material eg FWBO files, anti-cult.org etc). Some statements are more than one sentence long.

edit: The vast majority of what is written in this new proposed article is the exact same terminology as another source - eg 'organisational and authoritative focal point' is the exact same words as the source from which it came. Paraphrasing would of course be subjective to the needs of the writer. I'm not sure whether it's against the rules that I haven't put quotation marks around everything - I think it would make the article look messy to do so. Rupa zero 10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Article

FWBO stands for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. It is a new religious movement that was founded by Sangharakshita in 1967 in the UK.* While it considers itself a buddhist movement, the teachings of Western philosophy and psychotherapy also play a strong role, as well as highly controversial ideas that stray from traditional Buddhist teaching.* From a corporate perspective, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order is one of the biggest buddhist movements in the UK, with 30 urban centres and retreat centres in Britain.* There are around fifty FWBO centres worldwide - its second largest following is in India, where it is known as Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayaka Gana (TBMSG).* The FWBO is widely noted for its radicalism, and has been the source of much criticism, due to controversial religious practices and unorthodox teachings.* It is considered by some to be a cult.

Emphases of the FWBO

According to the FWBO, there are six characteristics that define the movement.

  1. The movement is ecumenical. The FWBO is not identified with any particular strand of Buddhism or Buddhist school, but draws inspiration from the whole array of existing schools.* It calls itself ecumenical rather than eclectic because it is founded on the premise that there is an underlying unity to all Buddhist schools.*
  2. The act of Going for Refuge is central. Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels (i.e., the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha), is considered to be what makes someone a Buddhist*,as opposed to adherence to any particular lifestyle, eg monasticism.*
  3. The movement is unified. The FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing, unlike most traditional Buddhist schools. The movement does regard single-sex activities as vital to spiritual growth, but men and women are considered equally able to practise and develop spiritually*.
  4. Spiritual friendship. Spiritual friendship is friendship based on shared values, especially the Three Jewels. The FWBO teaches that spending time with friends who share the same ideals supports ethical living and the arisal of the Bodhicitta*.
  5. Team based right-livelihood. Working together in teams, in the spirit of generosity and with a focus on ethics, is considered a transformative practice*.
  6. Art. The arts are considered to broaden sympathies and to extend experience. The many forms of art also help people to find an expression for their devotion, just like meditation, devotional rituals (pujas), and Dharma study might do*.

The Western Buddhist Order

The WBO is the authoritative and organisational focal-point of the FWBO*. It is a network of friendships between individuals who have made personal commitments to practice the Dharma and to effectively go for refuge to the Three Jewels in communion with others.* Order members are known as Dharmacharis (masculine) or Dharmacharinis (feminine) and they are ordained on an equal basis, taking the same precepts at ordination. At ordination they are are given a religious name in Pali or Sanskrit*. There are no higher ordinations, but a small number of order members formally take vows of celibacy and adopt a simpler life style. Contrary to the traditional Buddhist structure of separating lay and monastic members, the FWBO is a type of 'combined' order which is neither monastic nor lay*.

Order members undertake to observe a set of ten precepts (ethical training rules)*. These precepts, formulated by Sangharakshita, are different from monastic vows and do not appear in the Vinaya Pitaka, but are alluded to at one place in the Pali Canon. Here, the Buddha outlines ten actions which do not accord with the Dhamma and their positive corollaries. MN 41:8-14).

Beyond this, a commitment to personal Dharma practice and to remain in communication with other members are the only requirements*. Ordination confers no special status, nor any specific responsibilities, although many Order members do choose to take on responsibilities for such things as teaching meditation and the Buddhadharma*. There are now around 1400 members of the order, in over 20 countries*.

The Wider FWBO Sangha

In the FWBO, as in some orthodox Buddhist traditions, 'Sangha,' is interpreted as the Buddhist community as a whole, and includes friends, Mitras, and Order Members. In the Theravada tradition, it has tended to denote solely the monastic community.

Someone who regularly attends FWBO activities is considered to be a 'friend.' Friends do not have to consider themselves Buddhists and can be of any faith or none. Some people choose, after some time, to participate in an FWBO 'ceremony' and become a 'Mitra.' 'Mitra' is Sanskrit for friend, and in this case denotes people who consider themselves Buddhists, who make an effort to live in accordance with the five ethical precepts, and who feel that the FWBO is the appropriate spiritual community for them, at least for the time being*. Those who wish to join the WBO must request ordination in writing. Following this it can sometimes take several years to prepare for ordination. Preparation is an informal process, the focus of which is to deepen one's Going for Refuge.

Activities and Practices associated with the FWBO

FWBO centres teach buddhism, meditation, yoga and sometimes methods of self-improvement that come from outside of the buddhist tradition*. More recently FWBO activities have begun to include outdoor festivals, online meditation teaching, arts festivals, poetry and writing workshops, tai chi, karate, and pilgrimages to Buddhist holy sites in India*. For many years the FWBO charity Karuna Trust has raised money for aid projects in India*.

Meditation

Sangharakshita described meditation as having four phases. The first two are, calming or samatha practices and the last two are insight or vipassana practices. Until ordination the first two practices are given much more emphasis.*

  1. Integration - The main practice at this stage is the Mindfulness of Breathing, which has the effect of "integrating the psyche" (improving mindfulness and concentration).
  2. Positive Emotion - The second aspect of calm is developing positivity. The Brahmavihara meditations, especially the 'metta bhavana' or cultivation of loving kindness meditations, are the key practices for developing positive emotion.
  3. Spiritual Death - The next stage is to develop insight into the emptiness of the self and reality. Meditations include considering the elements of which self and world are composed, contemplating impermance, especially of the body; contemplating suffering; and contemplating Shunyata. It is considered important to approach these meditation practices from a strong base of integration and positivity.
  4. Spiritual Rebirth - the FWBO teaches that with the development of insight, and the death of the limited ego-self a person is spiritually reborn. Practices which involve the visualization of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are the main practices used in the FWBO in this phase. At ordination each dharmachari(ni) is given a more advanced sadhana visualisation meditation on a particular buddhist figure.

Other

Worship or Puja is a devotional practice intended to awaken a desire to liberate all beings from suffering. The most common puja practiced in the fwbo is composed of the anuttara puja sections that form the beginning of the Bodhicaryavatara of Shantideva.

Retreats provide an opportunity to focus on religious practice more intensely, in a residential context outside of a retreatant's everyday life. FWBO retreats can be broadly categorized into meditation retreats, study retreats, and solitary retreats. Retreat lengths vary from short weekend retreats to one or two weeks.

Right livelihood businesses generate funds for the movement as well as providing environments for spiritual growth. Emphasis is placed on teamwork with other buddhist practitioners, carried out for the benefit of others. The largest FWBO business is the Evolution chain of fairtrade gift shops.*

Most cities with an FWBO centre also have at least one residential community of practising buddhists. The first community was formed after a retreat when several of the participants decided they wanted to try to continue the retreat-style living. The most stable communities tended to be single sex and this has become the main paradigm for their communities ever since. The support from fellow practitioners in a community is seen to be effective in helping its members make spiritual progress.*

The FWBO after Sangharakshita

In 1995 Sangharakshita retired from active leadership of the FWBO and WBO.* In 1997 the responsibility for ordination and spiritual leadership was handed over to the preceptor's college, based in Birmingham.* Since then Sangharakshita's health has declined.* In 2000 the first Chair of the preceptor's council was chosen by Sangharakshita. In future this position will be elected by the WBO to five-year terms.*

In 2003 the Public Preceptors, responding to feedback from the Order and the movement, decided to move away from having a formal relationship to the Order and movement, and to concentrate on the ordination of the new members of the Order, teaching and Dharma practice. At the same time the number of preceptors has expanded to introduce flexibility.

Change has also been fuelled by allegations of sexual misconduct by Sangharakshita and other senior order members, as well as the existence of cult behaviour surrounding certain order members and a climate of misogyny and manipulation.* Some guilty order members resigned,* while small number of order members have resigned in protest.* The problems of sexuality, power and misogyny, which had their heyday in the late 1970s and early 1980s, caused great distress to victims at the time, and the public revelations surrounding it continue to bring discomfort and humiliation to FWBO members.*

Nevertheless, the accusations have brought a need to face difficult issues squarely within the movement.* Most order members have stayed on to take advantage of a more relaxed and flexible atmosphere, in which they feel free to question and update the way things have been done, and even to question Sangharakshita.* A growing number of friends, mitras and order members are receiving teachings from outside the FWBO, including non-buddhist traditions such as Sufism.*

The WBO and FWBO are exploring ways to organise themselves and develop their work in a more decentralised way.* Debates continue about how to ensure both coherence and flexibility, as well as spiritual depth in the order.

Criticism of the FWBO

The most public criticism of the FWBO is manifest in the FWBO files, originally circulated in 1998 and available online, and an article published in the Guardian in 1997 called, 'The Dark Side of Enlightenment.'* This has since been met with a response from the FWBO. A counter response appears at fwbo-files.com. Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such its failings are well documented.

Doctrinal criticism

While some commentators consider the FWBO to be a genuine Buddhist movement*, others suggest it may be a pseudo-Buddhist one. The article published in the British newspaper The Guardian (27 October, 1997) reported that: 'Ken Jones, lecturer and author of several books on Buddhism, believes that the FWBO is ... "a deviant form of Buddhism." '

Although Sangharakshita received initiations from many buddhist teachers while in India, he never worked closely enough with any teacher to be considered his dharma-heir.* This means that in the eyes of traditional buddhism, the FWBO has no legitimate spiritual lineage. Implicitly, that the checks and balances provided by the insitution of lineage have not been present in the founding of the FWBO.

The critical stance of the FWBO towards other schools contributes to its unpopularity. In describing itself as being a movement that is, 'fully appropriate to Western society,' the implication is that existing Buddhist traditions that are spreading in the West are not. Sangharakshita criticised meditation centres that teach vipassana meditation to people who don't have extensive experience of samatha meditation. The result is that the FWBO criticises both orthodoxy and liberalism and portrays itself as the perfect balance between two extremes.*

Sangharakshita's behaviour violated the rules of the monastic code many times. He has admitted to having experimented with drugs on two occasions in 1969 and 1970, believing that since he was so often asked for his opinion on the topic he should be able to speak from experience.* He wore the robes of a Buddhist monk at a time when he was not practising celibacy. The FWBO-files claims that in doing this while on tour in India he was deliberately misleading people for whom the robe was a signifier of a particular lifestyle. This episode led to a number of mitras (friends) denouncing him by and rejecting the TBMSG en masse in 1999. A letter signed by the 88 Indian mitras, all from the Mumbai (Bombay) area stated:

"...while claiming to be a properly ordained Buddhist monk, a Bhikshu, you showed no respect for the devout feelings Buddhists associated with the robe by indulging in sexual misconduct, experimenting with drugs and teaching the 'neutrality' of sexual activities. In our opinion, this final act of yours was nothing more than an attempt to cover up your misbehaviour as a monk while still holding onto the power and prestige which the yellow robe along with the epithets Bhikshu and Mahasthavir held in the eyes of the common people. Thus you have cheated us." [15]

Sexuality

Although the FWBO has never portrayed it as official doctrine, there was active promotion of homosexuality by order members in the 1970s and 1980s.*

Sangharakshita asserted that the couple and the nuclear family are sources of neurosis.

'A couple consists, in fact, of two half-people, each of whom unconsciously invests part of his or her total being in the other: each is dependent on the other for the kind of psychological security that can be found, ultimately, only within oneself.'

(Sangharakshita, 1986, Alternative Traditions).

This quickly became more controversial.* The view arose among some order members that all forms of sexuality are conditioned, and that since same-sex communities were such a source of harmony, homosexuality wouldn't be neurotic in the same way as heterosexuality.* Then came the view that sexual interest could aid the development of Kalyana Mitrata.

'Sexual interest on the part of a male Order member for a male mitra [novice] can create a connection which may allow kalyana mitrata [spiritual friendship] to develop. Some, of course, are predisposed to this attraction, others have deliberately chosen to change their sexual preferences in order to use sex as a medium of kalyana mitrata - and to stay clear of the dangers of male-female relationships without giving up sex.' (Subhuti, pub. Shabda, September 1986, p125)

In some cases, these ideas were used in sexual manipulation by order members. The leader of the Croydon Buddhist Centre coerced an FWBO member into having sex with him. The victim has since left the FWBO, and this leader has since been expelled. The men's community Padmaloka developed a culture of sexual exploitation and consequently disbanded.*

In March 2003 an order member called Yashomitra wrote a personal account of his sexual relationship with Sangharakshita and published this in Shabda, the internal newsletter of Western Buddhist Order. Yashomitra's article can be found at http://www.fwbo-files.com/yashomitra.htm. In the article, he described how he was manipulated in having sex with Sangharakshita. He went on to state that "[t]he FWBO did seek to undermine heterosexual relationships and family life. It did teach that homosexuality was superior to heterosexuality. Members were 'converted' to homosexuality through coercive psychological means. Coercion of any sort was not anathema within the FWBO." Yashomitra resigned from the order shortly after the publication of the article.

In a letter to the Times of London(March 9, 2002) one ex-member who suffered abuse at the hands of an FWBO senior stated it had: 'taken four years of psychotherapy to heal the damage done to me' as a result of his experiences while living at an FWBO centre.

Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory in Northumberland, UK* speaking on BBC East's* 'Going for Refuge' TV programme (part of their 'Matter of Fact' series), broadcast on 12 Nov 1992, made the following comment on Subhuti's above statement :

'To me this is totally contrary to the Buddhist precepts, it's totally contrary to the Buddhist scriptures, and it's absolutely contrary to any sort of good practice. It to me is a form of manipulation.'

Misogyny and anti-family

Sangharakshita has made statements that imply that men are more spiritually advanced than women.* A culture of misogyny grew in the FWBO in the 1980s that was fed by single-sex activities, which bred ignorance of women and a sense of superiority among men.* Senior order member Subhuti explicitly wrote in his book, 'Women, men and angels,' that to be reborn as a woman was to be less spiritually able than to be reborn as a man.

Power

The FWBO operates under a 'friendly heirarchy,'* which can be dangerous when combined with enthusiasm for the teachings practiced.* The Guardian (27 October, 1997) reported that:

' ... Stephen Batchelor, a prominent Buddhist commentator and author of Buddhism without Beliefs ... says: "They [the FWBO] operate as a self-enclosed system and their writings have the predictability of those who believe they have all the answers. They are structured in a rigid hierarchy and do not seem to question the teachings of their leader. As with many new religious movements, their enthusiasm and unconventional convictions have the potential to lead to problems associated with 'cults' ..." '

Each FWBO centre is autonomous, and not subject to checks and balances by any central headquarters.* This has resulted in some centres exhibiting cult behaviour. Senior order member Ananda commented,

'People who had been ordained by Sangharakshita tended to develop their own little castles of which they were the unchallenged masters.'*

Croydon Buddhist Centre, often cited as a particularly bad case of this, developed an authoritarian atmosphere under the leadership of a charismatic order member. DV Barrett calls this combination of authoritarianism and charisma, 'potent and dangerous.'* The problems surrounding sexuality and misogyny are closely linked to an authoritarian atmosphere and charismatic teachers, who were able to disseminate harmful teachings and practices.

Barrett also comments that while cult cells are a common problem in the early decades of a New Religous Movement, this problem does not usually develop while the founder is still alive, as it did with the FWBO.* This implies that Sangharakshita himself is partly responsible for the existence of power issues in a way that the founders of other New Religious Movements are not.

anonymous person's comments

The anonymous person made comments on the proposed new article in amongst the article itself - this was confusing and difficult to read, so I've written down every point he made and list them below:

Changes proposed by anonymous

  1. "controversial New Religious Movement (link)(See criticism section)"
  2. "The FWBO is widely noted for its radicalism" is propaganda
  3. Abuse, misogyny etc should be mentioned in the intro
  4. Considered to be a cult can be sourced at cult information website
  5. 'Combined' order and 'neither monastic nor lay' are mutually exclusive terms
  6. Change, 'some orthodox traditions,' to, 'orthodox mahayana'
  7. "It is a network of friendships,' specify,' the wbo is a network of friendships.'
  8. Omit methods of self-improvement.
  9. Specify that Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony for ordination, specify that there is a heirarchy despite there being no higher ordinations, put ordination in inverted commas.
  10. doubts about lack of special status - can an non-OM be a centre chair?
  11. Sadhanas should not be referred to as sadhana-this is an attempt to legitimize an invented practice by giving it an Asian language name-the 'sadhana's of the FWBO did not exist in Asia
  12. 'Positive emotion,' isn't emotion a klesha or defilement
  13. specify who it is that approches meditation practises from a strong base of integration and positivity
  14. Anuttara puja thing is incorrect
  15. Two weeks is an embarrassingly short period of time for a proper retreat
  16. The profits of right livelihood businesses go to the fwbo. Too sanctimonious to point out that work is done for the benefit of others
  17. Leave out 'small' number of Order members have resigned- 'small' diminishes it where one could equally say, 'growing.'
  18. After FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing leave out, 'unlike other buddhist traditions.'
  19. change 'arisal of the bodhicitta,' to, 'arousal of the bodhicitta.'
  20. bullet point on art lacks fluency and doesn't make sense.
  21. in explanation on meaning of the word, 'sangha,' add the word celibate to monastic community.
  22. "Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such its failings are well documented." is pro-FWBO propaganda
  23. change, 'Sangharakshita has received initiations,' to, 'Sangharakashita claims to have received initiations.'
  24. "believing that since he was so often asked for his opinion on the topic he should be able to speak from experience." propaganda-what if someone asked his opinion on rape and murder?
  25. add to 'not practising celibacy,' ,'engaging in sexual acts with a number of different partners.'
  26. in critical stance of fwbo towards other schools, use of word liberalism is unclear - where is the eg for liberalism.
  27. add to, 'violated the rules of the monastic code many times, 'and in a number of ways.'
  28. don't specify in India for misleading people by wearing the robes.
  29. quote from shabda promotes homosexuality in the 90s so it's not a 70s and 80s thing.
  30. after quote on the couple, change, 'this became more controversial,' to, 'subsequently.'
  31. specify, 'homosexual sexual interest could aid the development of kalyana mitrata.
  32. many were coerced at croydon, not just one. giving padmaloka and croydon as the only examples diminishes the problem.
  33. add that yashomitra implied that the same had happened to dozens of men.
  34. fwbo members represent less than 1% of buddhists in britain - bluck.
  35. batchelor's quote has disappeared
  36. add note in sexuality on the greek model of love.
  37. talking about autonomy leading to cult behaviour defers blame as teachings came from the top.
  38. in the intro, does the phrase, 'controversial religious practices,' imply that the sexual abuse was justified on religious grounds.

Response to comments

Changes proposed by anonymous

  1. Not everyone thinks that the fwbo is a controversial movement first and a religious movement second. I feel that putting the controversy later in the first paragraph is enough.Agree
  2. Radical is not necesssarily a positive word. I can source academically the use of the word to decribe the FWBO. The phrase, 'Radical islamist,' is not positive, so why is, 'Radical buddhist,' propaganda?Check the definition of Islamist against Moslem-you will see what i mean
  3. You're right, a sentence about the abuse and misogyny should be in the introduction.
  4. I agree - let's source the considered a cult statement using that website.
  5. 'Combined' order and 'neither monastic nor lay' are mutually exclusive terms - That's an interesting point. I'll check back in my notes, but I'm pretty sure that's the same words that were used in a third party source.Yeah but it makes no sense
  6. Change, 'some orthodox traditions,' to, 'orthodox mahayana' - what about Vajrayana?Vajrayana is Mahayana
  7. "It is a network of friendships,' specify,' the wbo is a network of friendships.' - fine.
  8. Omit methods of self-improvement. - Why? This actually happens, and it's a sourced statement.
  9. Specify that Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony for ordination, specify that there is a heirarchy despite there being no higher ordinations, put ordination in inverted commas. - I don't know whether Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony.Emm Dee? Isnt it in Rainbow road? Can you source this assertion? How do you know what the ceremony entails? The heirarchy thing is fine, we can add that. But putting ordination in inverted commas is strange - I don't mind if you personally think that FWBO ordination is invalid, but there are many people who don't think that.(Moral relativism-thinking doesn't make it valid/invalid-all valid ordination lineages in the Asian traditions have lineage If you would like more to be said in the criticism section about the doubts cast over FWBO ordination and its validity then by all means find me a third party source and write me an example paragraph.OK
  10. doubts about lack of special status - can an non-OM be a centre chair?
  11. Sadhanas should not be referred to as sadhana-this is an attempt to legitimize an invented practice by giving it an Asian language name-the 'sadhana's of the FWBO did not exist in Asia - Please source this statement. How would you even know? Have you been ordained and left? This has nothing to do with it-anyone who knows the Asian Buddhist traditions knows this is how Asian prayer texts are known
  12. 'Positive emotion,' isn't emotion a klesha or defilement - this is a great point. It is in fact made many times in FWBO talks - that although we use the phrase positive emotion, metta isn't exactly an emotion. Can you think of a better way of phrasing it? In the FWBO the word, 'emotion' is used for want of a better term.Metta is Love (not craving!)
  13. specify who it is that approches meditation practises from a strong base of integration and positivity - We can rephrase the sentence to be more clear - it is the meditator who does this.NO, what do the terms mean
  14. Anuttara puja thing is incorrect - source it and it shall be so. I had no idea about that. Tantra in Tibet
  15. Two weeks is an embarrassingly short period of time for a proper retreat - What has this got to do with the neutrality of the article? I just think it belittles the knowledge base in the FWBO
  16. The profits of right livelihood businesses go to the fwbo. Too sanctimonious to point out that work is done for the benefit of others - Not all of the profits go to the FWBO. A lot of it goes to social projects. I don't think it is sanctimonious, but it can be rephrased to say, 'Is done to generate profits for social projects and FWBO centres and with ethical considerations such as fair trading in mind.'AGREE
  17. Leave out 'small' number of Order members have resigned- 'small' diminishes it where one could equally say, 'growing.' - Good point. Sorry about that.
  18. After FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing leave out, 'unlike other buddhist traditions.' - Maybe you're right. I'm not sure. It is true that some other buddhist traditions do not ordain men and women on an equal footing. The fact that that is a cultural thing is something that is asserted a lot in the FWBO - remember, buddhism without the cultural trappings - so I don't think it undermines the point. If it becomes a sore spot then it's not that important a statement and it can be removed, but it's not untrue, is it? Not as things have turned out but the inequality has arisen thru cultural influence not doctrinal IMO
  19. change 'arisal of the bodhicitta,' to, 'arousal of the bodhicitta.' - Another interesting philosophical point. Is the bodhicitta a feeling to be aroused within the self, or a manifestation of the divine that is to arise as if separate from the self? This is something of a koan, is it not? I don't think either word is right or wrong.If Buddha nature exists, Bcta is within that. It does not come from outside It is not given by some external god or taken from outside the mind
  20. bullet point on art lacks fluency and doesn't make sense. - you're right. After Emmdee has responded I will get on that.
  21. in explanation on meaning of the word, 'sangha,' add the word celibate to monastic community. - I think that's a fair point, but what about the priesthood in Japan, which is permitted to marry?-they're not monks, they're priests
  22. "Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such its failings are well documented." is pro-FWBO propaganda - I don't think this is true. Did you misunderstand and think I wrote, 'write about the FWBO-files'? I think it is in fact a negative statement - that the FWBO has many failings that have been recognised by reputable writers.AGREE
  23. change, 'Sangharakshita has received initiations,' to, 'Sangharakashita claims to have received initiations.' - Hmmm. Do you have any evidence apart from the groups that work against the FWBO? If a third-party academic source casts doubt in his initiations then your change is justified, but I haven't come across one.The fact is it is disputed so to say he has is adopting a non NPOV
  24. "believing that since he was so often asked for his opinion on the topic he should be able to speak from experience." propaganda-what if someone asked his opinion on rape and murder? - I know it's difficult reading. I think he was wrong too. But this is what he said and thought. I have used the word, 'Believing.' I can attribute it to a third-party source. I think the fact he used such bad reasoning to justify his acts makes the case for the FWBO worse, not better. It's too inefficient to be propaganda.
  25. add to 'not practising celibacy,' ,'engaging in sexual acts with a number of different partners.' - Fair enough. That can be arranged.
  26. in critical stance of fwbo towards other schools, use of word liberalism is unclear - where is the eg for liberalism. - The eg for liberalism is teaching vipassana to inexperienced meditators.The view that teaching vip to beginners is too liberal comes from??
  27. add to, 'violated the rules of the monastic code many times', 'and in a number of ways.' - You're right, this is more clear.
  28. don't specify in India for misleading people by wearing the robes. - Even though I don't think he was misleading people in Britain - because of what he actually said to people about monasticism and lifestyle - I'm willing to give this up as a compromise and agree with you that we should dump the specific mention of India.
  29. quote from shabda promotes homosexuality in the 90s so it's not a 70s and 80s thing. - We can easily get rid of the reference to the 70s and 80s, that's not a problem. I don't want to add the note about Shabda to the article because stuff that's written in Shabda isn't a teaching but a musing that is published for the purpose of being criticised by the author's peers. It's not something being told from on high as it was in the 70s and 80s. And 90s; Anyway, my point is that we can simply get rid of the references to 70s and 80s and make it sound like it is current, without going into pedantic specifics in the article.dont make it sound current that is not proven
  30. after quote on the couple, change, 'this became more controversial,' to, 'subsequently.' - Fine, we can add an element of cause-and-effect in there.
  31. specify, 'homosexual sexual interest could aid the development of kalyana mitrata. - That makes sense, you're right.
  32. many were coerced at croydon, not just one. giving padmaloka and croydon as the only examples diminishes the problem. - A note can be added to make it clear that this was widespread. However, in order for this section to be sourced academically, reference to Croydon and Padmaloka has to be made as this is what the academic authors wrote about.
  33. add that yashomitra implied that the same had happened to dozens of men. - That can be done.
  34. fwbo members represent less than 1% of buddhists in britain - bluck. - No. I've already explained that this isn't true. the figure of 1400 is for the WBO, across the whole world. It is neither a figure for the FWBO, nor is it a figure for Britain. I'm sorry, but as there are no reliable statistics to go on for membership we cannot add a sentence on it.But don't we know for certain that there are less members of the FWBO than the WBO?
  35. batchelor's quote has disappeared - No it hasn't, I moved it to a section where it was more relevant. Batchelor's quote didn't bring into question that the FWBO is buddhist. It brought into question that the FWBO is safe and not a cult.Sorry
  36. add note in sexuality on the greek model of love. - This is a nice addition. Please source it.Emmdee? it was in the TV program (3rd party source)
  37. talking about autonomy leading to cult behaviour defers blame as teachings came from the top. - In a well-written article we can't focus solely on pinning the blame on individuals. Reputable experts on New Religious Movements look not just at the teachings that lead to bad behaviour, but also on institutional problems that cause authority issues.Yeah but it hides from the fact that the FWBO is an organisation that exists and can be held responsible for actions in its centres
  38. in the intro, does the phrase, 'controversial religious practices,' imply that the sexual abuse was justified on religious grounds. - We all know that it was justified on religious grounds. But the sex thing isn't the only issue that makes the FWBO controversial. As you yourself have implied, the validity of FWBO ordination is questioned by some. Some say that one shouldn't practise puja without being initiated into it - the FWBO has no initiation into puja. To name but a few.

I'm going to leave a message on your talk page about the way you phrased your comments in their original form. I am hurt and offended by some of the things you said. Rupa zero 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry if you are offended by my approach-I don't have much time for this stuff-I'm sure youre very nice!I have no malice to you. I am determined that clarity will prevail I'm looking forward to the revised article going on line-please hurry! An enor mouse.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triratna_Buddhist_Community&oldid=147716452"