If a Christian monk was living with a woman, I think the questions would be the same. The vows the monks accept are pretty clear, and the rules for leaving the order, as well. If he was practicing this rigorous discipline with a young man, I'm sure there would be raised eyebrows, as well.

There are elements in the story that raise my red flags. The fact that Roach as amassed a "personal fortune", for one. And how does one practice non attachment and emptiness when this closely (my gut says "pathologically") bound to another person? And when a powerful and learned man takes on a pretty young female "disciple" 20 years his junior, and not his experiential equal? Perhaps I've been around academics too long but the advisor/student relationship is often not a good or equitable one. The fact that she has adopted the title "Lama", which is rather like declaring yourself the Archbishop of Canterbury, seems a bit off, too, even ignoring the whole ordination of women issue. If a woman wants to become an Episicopal priest, she has to go through the same rigorous training and stringent vetting that a man does. She can't just slap on a collar.

But I don't know these people, only just now heard of them, and I'm not a TIbetan Buddhist, so I don't know that my opinion matters much. But if I were her mother, I'd be concerned.

Edited at 2008-05-16 01:21 am (UTC)

You certainly raise some interesting issues.

What is it about women in general that disturbs the monastic (any religion) way? (As opposed to the Celtic coed religious community of early Irish Christianity?).

Don't forget that nuns give up men, too. As it has been diversely explained to me by both Christian and Buddhist monastics (male and female), one chooses celibacy to devote all one's energy and focus to a spiritual path. A famous Buddhist quote is "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha. If you meet your father on the road, kill your father. Bound by nothing you are free" or something along those lines. It's not meant to be taken literally, just an illustration of not becoming to attached to anything.

The few Buddhist monks and nuns I've spoken with do not dislike people, and have no horror of sex or childbearing. Some of them are parents or grandparents who have chosen the monastic life later on. They are filled with love, but chose to manifest it in a different way. Sister Chan Khong, who has worked closely with Thich Nhat Hanh since she was a young college student, came to the realization, long before she became a nun, that if she married, she would devote her energy to her family. By remaining unattached, she served the poor instead, devoting her love in that direction. I find that admirable.

That being said, throughout history men and women have either entered the monastic life for less than spiritual reasons (a safe haven in times of great poverty, for instance) or have been forced in at a very young age. And, as we've seen with some Roman Catholic priests, even good intentions aren't enough to keep some from giving way to the demands of the flesh. I would think it takes tremendous will power to live that life. Or maybe not. I'm very happy monogamously married to a man I really love, and don't feel like it's any effort at all, since it's what suits me. Probably a lot of happy monastics feel the same. For every scandal, there are far more good stories that never get told, too.

When the monastaries/convents of England where dissolved by Henry VIII, women's education was set back a century (according to the scholars on this great BBC 4 radio show, "In Our Times"), so women receive autonomy in religious orders, but what do men get being away from women (besides no heterosexual sex)?

Well, in a feudal society, it was a method of social mobility, both for poor, unlanded men, second sons and the like. In a poor culture, it provides the same educational opportunity to both genders. And again, some people just chose to live that life and are happy. I relished the week I spent on retreat. It was a world apart, where I could really see things for a different perspective and come away refreshed. We spent part of the day in silence, too. I wasn't sure what I'd think of that, but I loved it. Try it for a couple of days. It really changes your perspective on human interaction, and cuts out a lot of static. I wasn't expecting the person beside me to say anything. A shared smile became much more profound.

Has Buddhism (and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a spokesperson, I'm just curious about your take on it) had a protestant movement? In your opinion, is that what Zen is?

As I understand it, Mahayana Buddhism, which developed centuries after the Buddha's death, changed things quite a lot. Before that, I think one had to become a monk to practice well and achieve enlightenment. The Mahayana movement opened up practice to every one, and established what's called "the four fold community": monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. Community establishes a sense of unity between the four groups. I'm not really clear on Zen, but am pretty certain it's part of the Mahayana group. There's Theravadism (old school), Mahayana (reformed) and Tibetan, which harkens back to Theraveda in many ways, but also puts their own cultural spin on things. There's a great deal of diversity in each group, and within various sects, too. Great differences between countries, as well.

</i>When the monks of Gaden Shartse monastery visited a local book shop they talked about the 21 Taras and meditating on a divine femininity. Will western women bring something new to Buddhism, or will female equality be resisted with the same vigor that Christianity and Islam resists it? Does female spirituality=female equality? Or is it like struggling with a net? If you just stop thrashing, you can see the holes and swim out, be on your enlightened way? Did the early Christian women who traveled with St. Paul (before the St. part) just ignore his "sit down and shut up, women" rants or laugh at him? </i>

More good questions. From what I've read, Buddhism takes on the 'flavor' of every culture it come into contact with, which accounts for the broad differences in practice around the world. We westerners, Christian or otherwise, are going to inteprete the teachings through our own cultural lens.

The Dalai Lama and TNH both have written a lot about how basically getting kicked out of their own country and culture changed their perspectives as members of a very different culture. Both are a product of their culture and their generation but both have taught incredible reforms. Some may seem like 'not enough' to a young Westerner, but in their own cultures some of their teachings border on heresy. The DL was facinated by Western technology long before he left Lhasa, and has spent his life in dialogue with scientists, comparing the nature of the mind, and mind-body connections. THN was educated at Oxford and Princeton, I think, and roomed with a Jesuit who became a very good friend. Out of their conversations came his book "Living Buddha, Living Jesus". He sees strong parallels. I don't think it's too off the mark to consider Jesus a very great Buddha himself. It just means "Enlightened One" and anyone can achieve it, if they work hard enough.

So, the whole gender role thing. Feminism is certainly shaping Western Buddhism. Since anyone can practice the philosophy, you're going to get lots of differences, Many Asian cultures do not accept homosexuality. I'm not sure what the Buddha had to say about that, but the Dalai Lama, when called to task over his statements, realized that it was because he was a Tibetan more than anything that he had learned it was "bad". He's reevaluating that. TNH is very accepting. At Deer Park I met a young man who is openly gay, and has worked closely with Thay (as we call TNH It means teacher) to set up a sangha in Las Vegas that happily includes gay people. We have a few in my sangha, and despite the fact that we have many people of an older generation, no one cares. Everyone hugs everyone. That's our interpretation of loving kindness, and that of what I would guess is the majority of Western Buddhists. While the rules for nuns may follow some old traditions, lay people practice 21st century values. At least the ones I know. However, as many teachers have pointed out, you don't have to be a Buddhist to practice Buddhism. The wisdom is not secret, or even unique in many cases.

Sigh, I bet the DL and Hildegard von Bingen would have had a great conversation... I bet they'd agree on a lot of things!

Wow, this would be easier over tea, wouldn't it? ;-) so much typing. Guess this is an "LJ Sangha". Sangha means "here", btw and refers to people practicing Buddhism together. It can mean a local group, or the world. The Three Jewels of Buddhism are the historical Buddha, the original teacher (like Jesus, but not divine in Theraveda belief although other sects disagree), the Dharma (the teachings, the wisdom), and the Sangha (our mutual support system).

Having spent so many years as a lone 'book reading' Buddhist, I'm very appreciative of the people I've found to practice with. Imagine this conversation with 15 other people and lots of tea and food. :-)

A lotus for you, my friend. :-)


BTW, in Buddhist terms, we're having a Dharma discussion, an exchange of ideas from which all involved may learn something useful.

Edited at 2008-05-16 03:29 am (UTC)