Section I.Sangharakshita's place within the Buddhist tradition
Section II. Sangharakshita's training
Section
IV. Sangharakshita's career
Section
V. Sangharakshita and the FWBO's teachings in theory and
practice
1)
Sangharakshita's Actual Teaching
a)
The Question of Orthodoxy
2)
The Teachings of the FWBO
a)
'Higher and Lower Beings'
"Sangharakshita
and Nietzsche"
The
‘higher evolution’ and Darwinism, biological and social
FWBO
Ideology and Nazism
FWBO
Buddhism and Nichiren
Support
for Sangharakshita's approach
3)
Theory and Practice
a) Men and
Women
b) Sex and
Lifestyle
"Beyond
the Monk - Lay Split"
Sex and
Spiritual Life
c)
Families and Lifestyle
d) Sex and the
FWBO
Heterosexuality
and Homosexuality
FWBO
Buddhism - going back to first principles?
The
Dalai Lama and his attitude towards homosexuality
The Charge
of Coercion
This Refutation attempts to follow the structure of the FWBO's Response, so
as to answer its points systematically. In this Refutation, page numbers within
square brackets eg. [p23] relate to an assumed 50 page document length for the
FWBO's Response (equivalent to 10 point type on A4 paper). Numbers with an n
prefix refer to the note number in the FWBO's Response eg. [n23]
The FWBO's Response states:
[p1] "The FWBO Files is a 20,000 word document about the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, published in May 1998 on an Internet Web site."
The FWBO Files were originally available from a UK internet site, and after this site was blocked, subsequently became available at:
http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/fwbofiles.htm
The FWBO's Response to the FWBO Files is still available at:
http://www.fwbo.org/communications/ex-fwbo.html
(please note that the www.fwbo.org site is controlled by the FWBO; the www.ex-cult.org site is not.)
The footnote in the FWBO's Response tells us...
[n1] "It was initially posted...but withdrawn by Demon, the Internet provider on the grounds that its material was possibly libellous."
In truth, it was withdrawn by Demon because the FWBO threatened them with legal action, a fact the Response neglects to mention. This was done 12 hours before The Times Educational Supplement published an article entitled 'Buddhist group misleading pupils` (12 June 1998) which arose out of the Files and, in particular, out of questions being asked in the House of Commons about the activities of the Order, questions which ultimately led to an ongoing government enquiry.
The TES article alerted the educational establishment to the existence of the Internet document and so, in the lead up to its publication and in light of the fact that the British educational establishment is a field of considerable profit for the FWBO, they did everything within their power to prevent the public from viewing it. This differs somewhat from the open tone of their initial statement that they were "very open to talking fully and frankly about any concerns it may raise... about any aspect of the FWBO and its way of functioning" (Pro forma FWBO response sent to all British Buddhist Centres after Files publication on 6 May 1998). How they could answer the public's questions concerning a document they had deliberately prevented them from seeing is anyone's guess.
In fact, though the Order were probably not exceeding their UK legal rights in threatening Demon at the time, under the European Convention's Bill of Human Rights, it is an offence to attempt to censor information which is in the public interest. Thus, though the Response attempts to portray the Files content as libellous and illegal, the reality of the situation is that their own actions were a direct and illegal contravention of European law as well as an infringement of basic human rights as defined by the European Union.
Response:
[p1] "...the Files is just one element in a sustained campaign
by an anonymous group to discredit the FWBO...the individuals responsible for it
also contacted The Guardian in 1997 and stimulated its critical article on the
FWBOs work".
What we have here are the first attempts to attribute the Files to a group conspiracy. This was Hilary Clinton's first defence of her husband when accused of improper behaviour; subsequently the accusations, as we know, turned out to be true.
When the Dalai Lama met with the Conference of Western Buddhist Teachers in March 1993 (Kulananda attending), he advised that the integrity of the Buddhist tradition should take precedence over guarding a teacher's reputation when he is justly accused of ethical misconduct. When there is incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing, he said, it is one's responsibility to take action."Make voice" he insisted, "Give warning! We no longer tolerate!" The Dalai Lama encouraged repeated open criticism of such behaviour; if all else fails he stated we should: "Name names in newspapers".
- see Stephen Batchelor's report on the Conference of Western Buddhist Teachers with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala in March 1993, available at:It was for this reason that, as the authors of the Response rightly surmise, the Files' authors contacted The Guardian. Interestingly the FWBO did not see fit to sue The Guardian over any of the allegations. Clearly, they knew they could never win such a case. Such inaction implicitly, indeed explicitly, confirms the truth of the allegations made in the article.
http://www.dzogchen.org/wbtc/sbatchelor.html
Response:
[p2] "The intention of this Response is not to malign the
authors of the Files or to suggest that the FWBO is wholly without flaws."
The Response subsequently refers to the authors of the Files as:
'an inept and transparent interlocutor', as well as a 'lying`, 'disingenuous`, 'deeply misinformed`, 'sectarian', 'fundamentalist`, 'gossip`, who is lacking in 'credibility` and whose 'essentially false`, 'highly misleading` and 'entirely unsubstantiated claims`, are 'patently false`, 'easily disproveable factual inaccuracies', 'fictitious` 'slanders` and 'blatant untruths`. These are 'complete fabrication and highly implausible` and arise out of 'poor research` which reaches 'absurd conclusions`, based on 'selectively quoted, misinterpreted` or 'inaccurate quotes`, which are 'sometimes fabricated` and represent 'tendentious exploitation of personal tragedy` (I have tried to avoid repetition as much as possible here for the sake of brevity)...all of which seemingly contradict the FWBO's intent "not to malign the authors of the Files or to suggest that the FWBO is wholly without flaws".
Response:
[p2] "we will follow the structure of the Files itself, so that
its points may be answered systematically."
This is simply not done. Where is the response to 'The Venerable Mahasthavira Sangharakshita - Whats in a Name?` (Files, pp 29-31 of 38), for example? Why did Sangharakshita lie about his monastic status and allow himself to be referred to using honorific titles fit only for monks who have maintained moral purity for 20 years, when he was neither a monk nor morally pure? Why did he personally expel those who attempted to bring this to light? Why does he translate his name incorrectly, in a manner which makes it look as if he has been divinely chosen to take part in the task of transmitting Dharma to the West?
Why was the senior translator for more than one of the Tibetan lamas with whom Sangharakshita is supposed to have had such meaningful relationships, unable to confirm that any such relationships existed? Why did he not invite either Dudjom Rinpoche or Dilgo Khyentse to his centres when they came to the UK, two lamas he claims he had strong bonds with?
Again, why was the conduct of those at Lesingham House throughout the 1980's more akin to that of the patrons of a San Francisco gay bathhouse than a 'Buddhist` retreat centre? Where is Kulananda's response to the multiple allegations of abuse made against him? Why did he confirm to Reverend Daishin Morgan in 1990 (long after the Croydon controversy) that, within the FWBO, practises "took place between older teachers [plural] and younger students, as had happened in Ancient Greece", and what did he mean by this? Such questions cannot and should not be left unanswered in the way the FWBO have deemed fit.
This document will attempt to address the contents of the FWBO's Response in a proper systematic fashion, pointing out all of the explicit and implicit admissions, fudges and discrepancies inherent within the document. It will not however address the Response where it resorts to empty and repetitive rhetoric, vapid sloganeering or propagandizing, of which there is a substantial amount. If any important questions are left unanswered, the author will be happy to answer them in an appropriate public forum.
Response:
[p2] "This Response is not, for example, going to discuss the
details of any individual's sexual relationships. It is not uncommon to find the
two parties to such a relationship telling entirely different stories about its
nature, and outsiders cannot know where the truth lies. There is little point,
therefore, in entering into an inconclusive exchange of claim and
counter-claim".
The allegations in the Files are not made by individual parties.Rather they have been made in relation to Sangharakshita and those close to him by a number of individuals; they concern a multiplicity of abuses over a sustained period of time. 'Outsiders` can surely draw certain conclusions on the basis of these repeated, multiple allegations.
Response:
[p2] "Some people have asked that Sangharakshita himself
comment on the accusations in the Files. On some of these issues he has spoken
in the past, and we will present his statements here; in some other cases we
have asked him ourselves, and pass on what he has said. But there are many, many
accusations in the Files, and the only way for Sangharakshita to have answered
them all would have been for him to write this Response himself. He has not done
this, but he is currently writing a volume of memoirs about his life from 1964
to 1972, the period to which many of the allegations in the Files relate".
The allegations made in the Files are extremely serious. Sangharakshita is, in effect, 'on trial`. Would a court of law accept an accused's envoy when answers were required concerning periods and actions of which that envoy had no personal knowledge? Clearly not. Since the allegations revolve around Sangharakshita, his activities and his ideas, it is only fitting that he should answer them personally. Finally, the author of the Files is very happy that Sangharakshita is writing his memoirs concerning the period 1964-72, and is certain that they will demonstrate the same characteristic 'honesty` he has shown, for example, in his publicly lying for almost four decades about his monastic status, whilst at the same time having sex and taking drugs (as he & the FWBO admit within their Response).
Response:
[p3] "We shall not attempt to show that the FWBO's teachings
are better than others".
The other side of the coin to 'showing that the FWBOs teachings are better than others`, is asserting that Asian Buddhist traditions are inferior.The assertion that such traditions are limited by their 'ethnicity` is implicit in the claim that the FWBO's teachings are devoid of such limitations, a claim which is extremely explicit throughout their literature. It is in this way that the FWBO attempt, both within the Response itself as well as in their publications in general, to show that their teachings are better than those of the Asian traditions.
Response:
[p3] "There are naturally differing views on the broader
doctrinal questions, and our arguments are offered respectfully as a
contribution to a debate. We hope that this Response will stimulate a frank and
open discussion between concerned parties regarding such questions as what
constitutes legitimacy in a Buddhist teacher or organisation, and how one
ascertains the authenticity of a teaching, all of which have a bearing on
consideration of the FWBO itself".
It is noteworthy that the FWBO are finally prepared to enter into such discussions with Buddhists; such a revelation represents a welcome change of attitude from what has been until now a self enclosed, exclusive organization. It is hoped both that such a debate take place and, more importantly, that its conclusions are assimilated. It is at the same time sad that such discussions were not entered into before Sangharakshita and the FWBO decided to invent Buddhist teachings on morality, karma, women, the family, as well as homosexuality and Christianity, then sell these to the public at large as 'Buddhism` for the last three decades, without consulting representatives of any of the Asian Buddhist traditions on whose doctrines these ideas are supposedly based.
As to what constitutes a legitimate Buddhist teacher, one would have thought that, at minimum, he or she should teach Buddhism and keep basic Buddhist precepts such as not lying, taking drugs or having sex while claiming to be of ordained status.
Finally, if the FWBO wish to ascertain the authenticity of their 'doctrines` perhaps extensive consultation of and comparison with the scriptures of the various Asian Buddhist traditions might act as a useful starting point (particulary because, apart from the said scriptures, no other authentic reference points exist).
Response:
[p3] "He remains anonymous for no stated reason and in
phone-calls to people in the FWBO and others in their professional capacities,
he has used various pseudonyms".
The author's reasons for maintaining anonymity arose out of the experiences of others who have in the past attempted to alert the public at large to the truth about Sangharakshita and the FWBO; when Mark Dunlop for example, attempted to warn others about the activities of Sangharakshita, rumours were circulated that he was mad, even that he thought he was enlightened; FWBO devotees continue this abuse down to the present day on Internet newsgroups. Maurice Walshe's disdain for Sangharakshita was attributed to his being jealous of his popularity rather than any knowledge of the truth behind the facade.
Here, within their Response, the authors attempt to undermine the credibilty of the Files' author by identifying his use of anonymity as disingenuous. It is apparent from this that one of the many tactics the Order and their 'founder` employ whenever probing questions are asked, is to malign the source from which the questions arose, in an obvious attempt to undermine the credibility of that source, whilst at the same time drawing attention away from the real issues. The fact is that anonymity is being maintained so that the issues raised are addressed, rather than allowing the Order to distract the public and reduce these important issues to mere fodder for a vitriolic dispute.
Surely, considering the seriousness of the allegations against the FWBO and Sangharakshita, it would be more apposite for them to examine themselves and see if the allegations are true, rather than trying to ascertain who made them in order to launch yet another attack.
Response:
[p3] "We would like to extend an invitation to the author of
the Files, and any others who have doubts, questions or criticisms of the FWBO,
to discuss these with us directly, or in an appropriate public forum, so that we
may together seek to establish the truth".
To discuss the issues with the FWBO 'directly` actually means out of public view. However, it is in the public interest that all are informed about the issues under discussion; keeping such issues behind closed doors has very obvious drawbacks and limitations. Should others wish to accept the invitation to 'private` discussion, that is up to them.
As to discussing the issues in an 'appropriate public forum`, one would have thought that the Internet was sufficiently public for anyone's wishes. Nevertheless, if the FWBO consider the Internet to be inappropriate and they are as willing as they say to discuss the issues raised in the Files in a public forum, perhaps something resembling the Councils held after the death of the Buddha, would be appropriate. Herein it can be determined which of their doctrines are genuinely Buddhist and which are 'the gospel according to Sangharakshita`.
As far as establishing the validity of the allegations against the FWBO and its 'founder`, the public should be able to discern their validity after having read the confirmations, implicit and explicit, featured throughout the Response, as well as taking into account the considerable number of denials, discrepancies and fudges therein.
Section I. Sangharakshita's place within the Buddhist tradition
'Mistaking a charlatan for a savior and offering him one's life with blind faith is like falling asleep on a borrowed horse; the horse will return to its owner.` - Chogyam TrungpaResponse:
The claim that Sangharakshita's teaching is based on his discernment of what the Buddhist traditions have in common is nonsense. All of the teachings mentioned above are common to none, they are simply his own creation.
Which pre-existent Buddhist tradition are the teachings on the 'Higher Evolution` derived from? How many of the Asian traditions tell us that the nuclear family, pseudo-liberalism and Christianity are 'enemies to be attacked`, or that 'therapeutic blasphemy`, or sex with a spiritual friend, represent valid and beneficial spiritual practices?
Again, do not all traditions have the Tripitaka in common? Does not the Tripitaka contain the Vinaya pitaka, the codes of moral conduct? Then to what is Subhuti referring in 'Buddhism for Today` when he claims that:"..Buddhist ethics is cast entirely in terms of skill. There are no absolute moral values and each person must learn by his own experience how best to act." (p180). Isn't this equivalent to saying there is no right and wrong in Buddhism, 'just make it up as you go along`? Which Buddhist tradition is this teaching taken from?
Response:
[p3] "His teaching is an attempt to articulate the underlying
principles running through the tradition as a whole, rather than to train
students in an Eastern form; he describes himself as a 'translator' rather than
a representative; in founding the FWBO he has drawn freely on the Buddhist
tradition as a whole within a system that has its own coherence yet differs, not
in spirit but in various particulars, from the systems from which he has drawn".
The claim that Sangharakshita can "articulate the underlying principles running through the tradition as a whole" and that he has "drawn freely on the Buddhist tradition as a whole" is one of extreme arrogance. Sangharakshita is a "translator" who has no knowledge of any scriptural language. How then can he possibly have acquired the total knowledge of each tradition necessary to engage in such an undertaking? As was stated in the Files, Sangharakshita's knowledge of Buddhism is based largely on knowledge acquired in an autodidactic fashion, principally from the Western literature current in the 1940's and 50's, along with the English language translations available at the time. Sangharakshita himself has confirmed the statement in Stephen Batchelor's 'Awakening of the West` that, apart from limited encounters with teachers of the Theravadin and Tibetan traditions, his "knowledge was based on English translations of canonical texts and scholarly studies of the material." Batchelor took the draft of the text to Sangharakshita to root out mistakes in the section concerning him before the book went for publication. Sangharakshita did not object to the inclusion of the above.
Response:
[p3] "The Files is plainly outraged by this approach, but its
justification is the history and example of the Buddhist tradition itself....Its
history shows continual reformulation and development, often at the instigation
of a single figure."
Perhaps so, but this development has taken the form of a continuous evolution WITHIN the traditions and has therefore been a natural and organic progression. Sangharakshita on the other hand, has demonstrated extreme arrogance in inventing doctrines which totally contradict those of all previous traditions.
Response:
[p3] "- consider, for example the doctrinal disputes
surrounding such figures as Nagarjuna and Bhaveviveka in India, or Tao-Sheng,
Chih-I, and Hui Neng in China, Tsong-ka-pa in Tibet,....".
The mention of Nagarjuna and Tzong Khapa is most amusing. These were people who absorbed as many teachings as possible with scrupulous attention to mastery of each system in its entirety and constant reliance upon the citation of authoritative sources. Here the FWBO are attempting to equate their 'founder's` approach with its total antithesis.
Response:
[p3] "One might say that a tension between over-rigid
conservation and necessary reformulation runs through the Dharma's spread and
has been particularly intense at every crucial juncture.The encounter of the
Buddhist tradition as a whole with the West is generally recognized to be such a
juncture."
According to whom is this 'reformulation` necessary? Is the West 'generally' recognized as such a juncture? Certainly not by those Western Buddhists who have been successfully practising the Buddhism of the Asian traditions in the West over recent decades. The situation in the West may or may not be such a juncture, but here the FWBO assert that a majority think that it certainly is and then (surprise, surprise) offer their own perfect solution for it. Are practitioners of Asian Buddhist traditions in the West then, wasting their time? Should they be listening to the gospel according to Sangharakshita, Kulananda et al, rather than to the 'ethnically challenged` ideas of Tzong Khapa, Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa and the like?
Furthermore, quite apart from Sangharakshita's lack of any serious training in Buddhist traditions, he also spent the vast majority of his adult life completely disassociated from society at large, either within the institutionalised environment of the army or subsequently in India, completely disconnected from Western society altogether. Thus, his knowledge of the mores of adult society was as scant as his knowledge of Buddhism. How then could he possibly be qualified to determine what the nature of this 'necessary reformulation` should be? No, Sangharakshita's reformulation was not based on the needs and idiosincracies of Western society any more than it was based on a proper understanding of Buddhism; it was a reformulation that had as its foundation the need to accomodate his own personal peculiarities, such has his hatred of women and Christianity and his seemingly insatiable appetite for young men. Unfortunately this reformulation is now sold to Westerners as the Word of the historical Buddha.
Response:
[p3] "...a crucial issue in understanding Sangharakshita's
relation to the Buddhist tradition is that the encounter has been between the
West and the Buddhist tradition as a whole, all of whose branches have become
available to Westerners at the same time. We are therefore heirs to that
tradition as a whole, at the same time as being Westerners with our own cultural
legacy".
Indeed we are all "heirs to that tradition as a whole", but Sangharakshita has received and trained only in fragments of these traditions; he is therefore heir to no more than this. Of course, in reality we are all potential 'heirs` in that, if we have the patience, we can study one tradition properly.
Response:
[p3] "Similarly, Sangharakshita's training included experience
of various Buddhist schools, and was supplemented by far broader reading in
Buddhist canonical literature than would be usual in any of those schools"
In which language did he conduct all of this extensive reading of Buddhist canonical literature? Japanese, Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Pali? Since he has no ability whatsoever to read in the first three of these scriptural languages, and since he is unable to demonstrate even an elementary knowledge of the latter two, as evidenced by his inability to distinguish between such basic words as 'of` and 'by` (see Files: "The Venerable Mahasthavira Sangharakshita - Whats in a Name?"), it is difficult to understand how his knowledge of the various Buddhist schools could have been supplemented by "far broader reading in Buddhist canonical literature than would be usual" in any of the Asian Buddhist schools.
Sangharakshita's reading was broad only in the sense of his having read a number of English language translations of a tiny fraction of texts of the various Asian Buddhist traditions. Here however, it is depth of understanding that is required, rather than a smattering of knowledge about Buddhism in general. No genuine Dharma master is a 'jack of all trades, master of none` and this attitude of 'never mind the quality, feel the width` can never result in an adequate 'reformulation` of the Dharma, only its significant 'dumbing down` and the triumph of style over content.
Response:
[p4] "His conviction (and, indeed, his argument) is that there
are values, goals, teachings and practices which define the core of the Buddhist
tradition,"
True, but without knowing even one of the traditions properly, how is it possible for Sangharakshita to discern which values, goals, teachings and practices define the core of the Buddhist tradition?
Response:
[p4] " He claims that, as well as being innovative in some of
its formulations, his teaching is in keeping with the principles and spirit of
the Dharma as a whole and is, in this sense, wholly orthodox"
His teachings on women, the family, the Higher Evolution of the individual and the place of the homosexual relationship in the Buddhist path are, on the other hand, wholly heterodox and, since they directly contradict teachings found within genuine traditions, can hardly be said to be "in keeping with the principles and spirit of the Dharma".
Upon scrutiny, it becomes apparent that much of this particular argument revolves around the definition of the word 'orthodoxy`. The footnote which accompanies this section, gives the names of the texts wherein Sangharakshita re-defines the meaning of the word 'orthodoxy` so as to marginalize the Asian traditions (see 'Extending the Hand of Fellowship` for instance). Not content with re-defining the meaning of Buddhism, Sangharakshita and his supporters also appear to believe it is his right to re-define the meaning of the English language.
Response:
[p4] "The FWBO, similarly, sees itself as wholly traditional
and orthodox. It is not so in the sense of following all the observances,
customs and practices which have become traditional in Buddhist countries, but
in the sense that it seeks to apply the essential, traditional, principles of
Buddhism to the circumstances in which it finds itself."
In other words , it is superior to Asian forms of Buddhism since they are polluted with 'cultural conditioning` and are therefore less relevant to the West; the FWBO, on the other hand, apply the "essential, traditional, principles" of Buddhism in its new environment. Remember, the authors of the Response "shall not attempt to show that the FWBO's teachings are better than others"!
Response:
[p4] "It is a radical orthodoxy"
This is a totally nonsensical term, its two components being mutually
exclusive & contradictory.
Response:
[p4] "The FWBO's role ..is ... creative, in the sense of not allowing itself to be determined by the immediate past of British Buddhism, or, for the matter of that, by the immediate past of the eastern Buddhist world."
The FWBO's teachings on women, the Higher Evolution and so on, are not findable in the immediate past of either of the above, nor indeed are they findable in the distant past of the latter. It would seem therefore that the FWBOs teaching is "creative, in the sense of not allowing itself to be determined by the past of" the whole of the Buddhist tradition, either in its earlier or later manifestations.
Response:
[p4] "Thus the concerned reader who asks of the FWBO (or indeed
any Buddhist tradition), 'Is this real Buddhism?' will not find an answer by
simply looking at other Buddhist traditions, and expecting it to be exactly the
same".
If the concerned reader should however find teachings which do not appear in any pre-existent Buddhist tradition or even directly contradict the Word of the Buddha, he or she can be sure that such a teaching is not Buddhist. When for example, did the Buddha teach that sex with ones spiritual friend was part of the path, or that "the nuclear family, Christianity, and pseudo liberalism" are "The enemies to be attacked"? (Subhuti, Buddhism for Today p176)
Response:
[p4] "If pushed to extremes (as, we would say, has occurred in
the Files) such a position would be fundamentalist. As an innovator,
Sangharakshita, by definition, cannot be easily fitted into pre-existent
sectarian categories."
Calling the author of the Files a 'fundamentalist` and describing pre-existent categories as 'sectarian` (a term which appears throughout the Response in reference to both the author of the Files as well as to the Asian Buddhist traditions in general) is nothing more than vapid sloganeering. Actually, if the term 'fundamentalist` referred to those who adhere to the fundamental principles of Buddhism, rather than being an attempt to cast the author of the Files in the same mould as Islamic fundamentalists (which is clearly the intent of the Response's authors), it could easily be taken as a compliment. Further, the reference to the pre-existing Asian Buddhist traditions as pre-existent sectarian categories is probably one of the finest examples of sectarianism to manifest in recent times.
Response:
[p4] "Academic commentator Andrew Rawlinson, for example,
locates Sangharakshita within 'the ecumenical Sangha' of non-sectarian western
Buddhist teachers'"
Andrew Rawlinson, for those who are not familiar with him (i.e. the majority of people who read the Response), is a strange bedfellow for the FWBO to throw in their lot with. A maverick academic (whose idea for the cited work, he reveals in his preface, arose out of the desire to secure postgraduate funding), he is not a Buddhist and can best be described as a 'universal theist` whose philosophical views are based on instructions he received from a contemporary Sikh guru. What qualifiies him to confirm that Sangharakshita is worthy of determining the future direction of Buddhism in the West is anybody's guess.
Section II. Sangharakshita's Training
a) Sangharakshita as a wandering ascetic and in the Theravadin Tradition.
Files:
'He claims to have lived the life of a wandering ascetic in India.
We are presented with little evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, in
one publication he openly admits to never having been alone during this
particular period of his life, and to have spent fifteen months in the same
place...`
Response:
[p4] "In The Rainbow Road,Sangharakshita gives a detailed
account of his life from the time that he went forth in 1947 until his sojourn
with Bhikkhu Kashyap a few months after his sramanera ordination in 1949. This
life is principally characterised by wandering and asceticism and, as
Sangharakshita has always said, he followed it in the company of the friend who
was ordained as Ven. Buddharakshita`.
Chapter 1 of 'Facing Mount Kanchenjunga` (p7), tells us:
"I had not been
on my own in the Army which had originally brought me to India, I had not been
on my own during my two years as a wandering ascetic." In referring to the same
period in 'The History of My Going for Refuge" (p27) Sangharakshita tells us:
"...we eventually settled in a deserted ashram on the outskirts of the town of
Muvattupuzha, in the State of Travancore, where we stayed for fifteen months".
Thus in a two year period of 'wandering asceticism`, Sangharakshita, by his own admission, was a) never alone, and b) stayed in the same place for fifteen months. This, in most peoples books, other than Sangharakshita and the FWBO's, does not constitute 'wandering asceticism`.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that the claim to said 'asceticism` is an obvious nonsense, the evidence offered to support Sangharakshita's claim comes from yet another of his own endless volumes of memoirs, this time 'The Rainbow Road`. Do the FWBO not realise that the worm has turned and that the word of a man known to have repeatedly lied for decades, the word of a man who had 'experimental` sex with people who went to him for spiritual guidance while at the same time claiming to be a monk, the word of a man who wallows in almost constant self-aggrandisement, no longer has any value in the world outside the mandala of Sangharakshita's ego. References to Sangharakshita's works as a means of proving his claims to be true are as pointless as asking a burglar whether he committed the robbery or not.
Files:
'We are told: 'he studied Abhidhamma, Pali and Logic at Benares
University with Ven. Jagdish Kashyap', a Buddhist teacher of the Theravada
tradition with whom Sangharakshita claims to have had a deep and meaningful
relationship. Yet, according to Sangharakshita's own writings, his whole
relationship with Kashyap lasted a total of seven months, a thoroughly
insufficient period of time for any such relationship to develop.' (p.5)
Response:
[p4] "The Rainbow Road describes how the two lived together
from mid-1949 in Kashyapji's small house at Benares University. Under Kashyap's
guidance Sangharakshita 'embarked on a course of study that was to keep me busy
without interruption - for seven of the quietest and happiest months I have ever
known.' Although subsequently he rarely studied with such intensity under such
ideal conditions, prolonged and deep reflection on the Dharma has been a
lifelong habit".
The habit of "prolonged and deep reflection on the Dharma" is a lifelong one for any genuine practitioner of the Buddha's teaching. This however is not the issue under discussion. The point the Files makes is that Sangharakshita and the FWBO use his few months of studying Pali, Abhidhamma and logic in an academic context as evidence for the claim that his training in the Theravada was extensive. The Response very clearly confirms that this 'extensive training` did indeed last only seven months and that "subsequently he rarely studied with such intensity".
Furthermore, as was pointed out previously, in Stephen Batchelor's 'Awakening of the West` (p331), he states:
"Yet apart from the 7 months with Jagdish Kashyap and, since 1953, occasional sessions with Dardo Rinpoche, Sangharakshita's knowledge of Buddhist doctrine was based on English language translations of canonical texts and scholarly studies of the material."
The reader will recall that Batchelor took the draft of his work to Sangharakshita to root out any inaccuracies in the section concerning him before publication and that, having read it, Sangharakshita raised no objections.
Response:
[p4] "The success of these studies may be assessed by
considering Sangharakshita's subsequent writing and teaching".
The footnote [n15] to this informs us that Sangharakshita's understanding of Buddhism (and here they are referring in particular to the Theravada) is 'formidable by any standards` and amongst other works, offers his 'Eternal Legacy` (Tharpa, London, 1985) as evidence of this. However, in his review of the above work in the journal 'Studies in Comparative Religion`(vol 17), L.S. Cousins, one of the seniormost lay practitioners of Theravada Buddhism in Britain, a renowned Buddhist scholar, and someone whom the Response sees fit to quote in order to justify its assertions, describes Sangharakshita's work as one in which..
"We find neither the cautious and accurate care required for academic scholarship nor the inspiration of a straightforward spiritual approach."
He continues:
"As a source of historical information The Eternal Legacy is seriously flawed...it is old fashioned and oddly dated. Sometimes it seems likely that this is because the views of particular scholars have been accepted because their views fit the author's preconceptions rather than because of the strength of their arguments."
"Occasionally the distortion of history becomes absurd."
"The author rarely misses an opportunity to attack the Theravada school - for its "narrowness", its "pedantically narrow and rigid doctrine of Buddhavacana", its "formalism" and so on...it seems a pity to introduce a sectarian and narrow-minded approach of a kind that the more traditional forms of Buddhist teaching have generally avoided".
The review outlines various other faults, the quotations of which are unneccesary for the purposes of the present debate.
In considering Sangharakshita's understanding of Mahayana philosophy one might consult Hamish Gregor's review of 'Wisdom Beyond Words: Sense and Non-Sense in the Buddhist Prajnaparamita Tradition' (Windhorse 1993) in the Buddhist Studies Review (13,1 p35). Having listed the ways in which Sangharakshita attacks practitioners of the Zen and Tibetan tradition in a manner remarkably similar to his denunciations of the Theravada ("Zen and Tibetan practitioners are just as likely to be narrow minded, bigoted, dogmatic and literalistic as any Theravadin"), Gregor concludes:
"All in all, this volume is remarkable only for its superficiality. It will be of no interest to the scholarly community; and the reader who seeks deeper understanding of the prajnaparamita teachings at the non-specialist level is already well - and far better - catered for elsewhere."
He further describes Sangharakshita's explanation of the vajrayana practice of mantra as "lame" and "risible" and, as far as content is concerned, tells us that "on its ostensible subject matter, the text offers little worthy of note".
Sangharakshita's rendition of the vajra guru mantra of Padmasambhava, which he gives as 'Om Ah Hum Jetsun Guru Padma Siddhi Hum`, is a fine example of the risible nature of Sangharakshita's explanations. Along with the mantra of universal compassion, Om Mani Padme Hum, the vajra guru mantra was probably the most recited of all mantras in Tibet. If Sangharakshita knew anything at all about Tibetan Buddhism, one would expect that he would at least know one of its most famous mantras. The Sanskrit vajra guru mantra however, is Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum, the word 'jetsun`, macaronically inserted by Sangharakshita, being of Tibetan rather than Sanskrit origin and having a completely different significance to the word 'Vajra`. A clear indication of the "success" of his studies?
Sangharakshita's works may have sold well and he may have given many 'teachings`. However, the content of his teachings and writings are an object of derision amongst knowledgable Buddhists and, as his writings on the vajra guru mantra illustrate, are based on little, if any, real experience of the traditions he claims extensive knowledge of.
The remainder of this particular paragraph of the Response speaks of the enduring nature of the relationship between Sangharakshita and Jagdish Kashyap. Their relationship may well have lasted for many years subsequent to the seven months spent studying at Benares but, as both 'The Rainbow Road` and Stephen Batchelor's work clearly state, Sangharakshita's actual period of training with his Theravadin guru (which is what is actually of relevance to the present debate) lasted a total of seven months. Since it takes years, indeed decades, to develop a thorough understanding of such a profound tradition as the Theravada, seven months of study, as the Files suggests, is clearly a thoroughly insufficient period of time for such an understanding to develop.
Response:
[p4] "The Files cites two Theravadins who questioned
Sangharakshita's knowledge of their tradition"
One of these, as the Response rightly states in the accompanying footnote, is Dhiravamsa. In responding to his accusation that their teacher knows nothing about vipassana, the authors state that Sangharakshita has never written or lectured on vipassana meditation. Had he any knowledge whatsoever of this practice, Sangharakshita would surely have written extensively on the subject. The authors then, implicitly confirm the validity of Dhiravamsa's accusation that Sangharakshita knows nothing about the meditational practice which lies at the very heart of the Theravada. How then can he possibly claim any expertise in that tradition?
Response:
[p4] "Bhikkhu Brahmavamso's view that Sangharakshita's 43 Years
ago: Reflections on my Bhikkhu Ordination displays 'the misunderstandings of an
outsider' (p.5), is a personal opinion, stated in a polemical book review".
The FWBO are quite happy to accept all of Sangharakshita's personal opinions, as explained in writings steeped in polemic, as the teaching of the Buddha. Why then, should they find it so difficult to accept Brahmavamso's opinions?
Response:
[p4] "More broadly, the fullest evidence for Sangharakshita's
understanding of Theravada teaching lies in the many books he has written
expounding the Pali Canon, and teachings drawn from it by the Theravadin
tradition."
One might equally say the fullest evidence for Lobsang Rampa's understanding of the Tibetan tradition lies in the many books he has written concerning it.
Response:
[p5] "He has likewise maintained friendships with Theravadin
monks and lay people over the years who would not share Brahmavamso's opinion"
It is probably quite true that Sangharakshita has maintained such friendships and that some Theravadins would not share Brahmavamso's opinions. The Theravada is a large and complex tradition with many sub-divisions. It is precisely because of this complexity that Brahmavamso describes Sangharakshita's views on the Theravada as "the misunderstandings of an outsider". What Sangharakshita saw of the Theravada thirty five years ago in India was by many people's accounts, less than inspiring and some of Sangharakshita's criticisms clearly had their basis in fact. However, what he saw can by no means be said to be representative of the nature of the whole of this ancient tradition and had he been anything more than a mere 'outsider` he would have known this. Despite this, and on the basis of his minimal encounter, Sangharakshita casts the whole of the Theravada in a negative light in much of his work. This blanket condemnation is then blindly accepted by disciples who have no experience of the tradition whatsoever.
Sangharakshita often relies on deductive reasoning to arrive at his thoroughly generalized conclusions. Deductive reasoning consists of arriving at specific conclusions on the basis of general premises, for example 'I met a bhikkhu obsessed with formalism; he was of the Theravada. Therefore, the Theravada is riddled with formalism`. Such a method is the object of derision of trained logicians as a consequence of its obvious faults and inadequacies. Consider the following: I have seen a car; it was red; therefore all cars are red. Ridiculous as this may seem, it is exactly the same logic Sangharakshita relied upon when formulating his theories about the Theravada.
Response:
[p5] "Theravadin bhikkhus are not required, as the Files
suggest, to undertake 'systematic training in textual and contemplative
curricula'".
The key word here is 'required`. While it is true that there is no insistence in the Vinaya that bhikkhus follow a certain prescribed formal course of study or practice, the nature and purpose of living the holy life is made quite clear in the scriptures. This is clearly expressed in the Mahaa Assapura Sutta, No. 39 in the Majjhima Nikaya for instance. The FWBO are invited to examine this scripture and see how much resemblance it bears to their leader's example.
Response:
[p5] "What is required is strict adherence to the bhikkhu
pratimoksa and rules of the Vinaya. Sangharakshita asserts that he scrupulously
followed this disciplinary code in all its major requirements for more than
twenty years."
Sangharakshita claims his ordination took place on 24 November, 1950. In the August 1987 issue of the FWBO magazine Golden Drum, Sangharakshita states: "In 1967, when I returned from India to start the FWBO, there was a lot of talk abut the place of sex in communication. I therefore thought I should perhaps experiment a little in this field. This was also the period of my experimentation with psychedelic drugs...I was just exploring things for my own benefit, for the satisfaction of my own curiosity".
As those not mathematically challenged will realise, 50 plus 20 does not equal 67. Nor does 50 plus 20 equal 87 or 93; 1987 being the year he first publicly admitted to his drug taking and sexual activities, and 1993 being the first time he publicly admitted to the invalidity of his ordination (albeit for reasons other than those he gave).
Even though he by his own admission did not, had Sangharakshita maintained his vows for 20 years (i.e. until 1970), since he did not publicly admit to his 'extramural` activities until 1987, then for the period from 1970 to 1987, in knowingly allowing others to believe he was a monk, while in fact he was not, Sangharakshita would still be guilty of lying. People who have sex, take drugs and lie repeatedly while claiming to live the monk's life do not qualify as Venerable Mahasthaviras in the real Buddhist world.
Furthermore, the FWBO have attempted to justify Sangharakshita's drug taking and sexual experimentation by claiming it was a part of the 'necessary reformulation` he was engaged in, in the late 1960s. (See their extensive response to the Guardian article issued in early November 1987). Yet here, in the above quote, he states that he engaged in said activities purely for his own benefit, in order to satisfy his own curiosity. So which was it?
Finally, why are the Response's authors still attempting to perpetuate the illusion that Sangharakshita was a bhikkhu who maintained pure morality when he himself has, albeit somewhat belatedly, admitted that he never held a valid ordination in the first place, a fact he claims to have become aware of 1956? (see 43 Years Ago, p.8). All that this indicates is that the FWBO are completely unable to give an answer to any of the allegations made in the FWBO Files under the heading 'The Venerable Maha Sthavira Sangharakshita - Whats in a Name?`, as evidenced by their complete unwillingness to address any of the issues contained therein. Why? Because they have no answer. Why? Because the allegations are all true.
Response:
[p5] "He was fully accepted by the Sangha as a fellow bhikkhu"
Of course he was accepted as a bhikkhu by the Sangha. He wore the robe, shaved his head and told people that he was a bhikkhu. Their is nothing unusual then, in the fact that he was accepted by the Sangha as a bhikkhu nor does it prove anything. If Sangharakshita had worn a fireman's outfit, driven round in a fire engine and told everyone he was a fireman, no doubt he would have been fully accepted as a fireman. The truth of the matter is however that, by his own admission in 1993, he was no more a bhikkhu than he was a fireman; he was simply 'dressing up`. One wonders why then, in 1991, Sangharakshita wrote, in the full knowledge that he was not a monk:
"I myself was a monk...I was a monk because I wanted to identify myself with Buddhism and the spiritual life as fully as I possibly could,...and saw the monastic life as the best means of achieving this end. For me 'being a monk` certainly did not mean simply wearing a yellow robe and keeping my head shaved, as it seemingly did for so many other members of the Monastic Order".(Facing Mount Kanchenjunga, p370)
Two years later, in '43 Years Ago`, Sangharakshita made it quite clear that he was not, nor had he ever been, a monk and that being one certainly did mean simply wearing a yellow robe and keeping his head shaved. (Note also the hostile and sweeping generalisation with regard to the monastic sangha, another recurrent theme in Sangharakshita's works.)
Response:
[p5] "indeed he was entrusted with responsibilities, such as
the editorship of The Maha Bodhi Journal, which would only have been given to a
bhikkhu in good standing."
The proprietors of the journal would certainly not have made enquiries as to the 'good standing` of the 'bhikkhu` since such enquiries represent a humungous 'faux pas` in Buddhist circles. Their primary concern would have been to find someone who could write in fluent English. Since there were so few candidates qualified in that respect available at the time it is not so surprising that Sangharakshita was given the job. The Response's authors create the illusion that Sangharakshita was chosen for the job because he was held in high regard by prominent members of the Asian Buddhist community. It is far more likely that he was chosen primarily because he could spell properly and secondly, because he appeared to demonstrate a modicum of knowledge of certain aspects of the Buddhist tradition.
b) Sangharakshita - the Triyanist
If the Response's intention is 'to follow the structure of the Files itself, so that its points may be answered systematically", as it states, then this section should represent an attempt to answer the Files' allegation that Sangharakshitas 'extensive` knowledge of the Zen and Chan Buddhist traditions was based on nothing more than an alleged relationship with a renegade who was not an authorised teacher of any of the Chinese or Japanese Buddhist traditions. We shall return to this point in a moment but let us first examine the Response's preamble which would seem to confirm that in fact we are actually addressing the question of Sangharakshita's links with the Chinese and Japanese traditions.
Response:
[p5] "His earliest encounters with Buddhism came through wide
reading across the tradition, and particularly the Mahayana texts The Diamond
Sutra and The Sutra of Wei Lang (Hui Neng), which at the age of 16 convinced him
that he was a Buddhist and always had been".
The 'width` of Sangharakshita's reading in the languages of Japan and China, the homes of the Zen and Chan traditions respectively, has already been demonstrated, he being unable to read in either of the relevant languages. But what about the effect that the reading the English translations of the two above mentioned texts, in particular the Diamond Sutra, had upon him; how does he himself describe this profound effect? In 'The History of My Going for Refuge`(p.20) he tells us:
"Though this book epitomizes a teaching of such rarified sublimity that even Arhats, saints who have attained individual Nirvana, are said to become confused and afraid when they hear of it for the first time, I at once joyfully embraced it with an unqualified acceptance and assent. To me the truth taught by the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra was not new. I had known and believed and realized it ages before and the reading of the Sutra as it were awoke me to the existence of something I had forgotten".
So, having humbly declared himself superior to the Arhats, Sangharakshita goes on to claim to have actually realized the view of the true nature of reality expressed in the Diamond Sutra before even reading it, and all at the ripe old age of sixteen.
In Buddhist circles, the claim to 'realization` is a significant one to make. This is not merely the assertion that one has developed a full and correct understanding of something, rather it is a declaration of an intuitive experience of a philosophical concept, wherein the mind is so mixed with the idea that it becomes part of ones own 'world view` and accompanies one at all times, in all situations. Even Hui Neng, who actually did experience such a realization, managed to keep that one to himself. Sangharakshita, on the other hand, shared the knowledge of his 'realization` with us by having it published and distributed worldwide by his own personal publishing company, Windhorse Press.
Response:
[p5] "His earliest published article, aged 19, was entitled
'The Unity of Buddhism' in 1946, and was printed in The Middle Way".
This accidentally reveals the arrogance of the underlying assumption behind the whole of Sangharakshita's work: 'The Unity of Buddhism`, at the age of 19? May one ask how he had discerned this unity? Obviously not by contact with any of the traditions since he was yet to encounter them, but by a combination of auto-didactism founded on some early Western (and hence superficial) accounts of Buddhism, and his own breathtaking self-confidence.
Response:
[p5] "His friendships ...included a close connection with Lama
Anagarika Govinda".
Wait a minute, weren't we supposed to be addressing the question of Sangharakshita's training in the Zen tradition? Then why are we talking about Lama Govinda? Nevertheless, let us pause for a moment to consider Govinda's credentials as well as several similarities between himself and the 'venerable Maha Sthavira`.
Govinda, like Sangharakshita, was very fond of 'dressing up`, often, although not exclusively, as a Tibetan lama. Unlike the majority of Tibetan Buddhists however, Govinda's relationship with his own 'root guru`, Thomo Geshe Rinpoche, was based on an encounter which lasted a matter of weeks rather than years, as evidenced by his account of their relationship in 'Way of the White Clouds`.
Following this, on the basis of meetings with Kagyu practitioners, Govinda declared himself a Kagyupa, despite the fact that his 'root guru` was a Gelugpa and an avid devotee of the demonic spirit Dorje Shugden, sworn enemy of the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions.(As far as the author is aware, the worship of Dorje Shugden does not feature in the spiritual curriculum of the Arya Maitreya Mandala)
Sangharakshita, who felt a 'close personal connection with the Nyingma tradition`, also cites a well known devotee of Shugden, Dhardo Rinpoche, as one of his principal teachers. The relationship with those who propitiate the spirit continues down to the present: The FWBO were instrumental in ensuring the admission of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) to the Network of Buddhist Organizations, the Order use the NKT founder Kelsang Gyatso's work in their study groups, and their magazine Dharma Life (eg Summer 1998) has portrayed NKT members as orthodox representatives of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, whereas in fact they are recognized as pariahs throughout the whole of the Tibetan Buddhist world.
As to Govinda's version of Buddhism which is, to say the least, bizarre, his teachings and understanding are based again on knowledge acquired primarily in an autodidactic fashion and bear little resemblance to anything found in the Tibetan Canon, as is quite obvious to genuine practitioners of the Tibetan traditions upon examination of any of his later works. Where the two men and their teachings differ however is that, whereas Govinda was to all intents and purposes harmless and his ideas quaint, Sangharakshita and his ideas have proved themselves to be harmful and represent a serious threat to the existence of genuine Dharma throughout the Western world.
In brief, the citation of Govinda as support for the validity of Sangharakshita's 'triyanist` approach is meaningless. Quite apart from the fact that what should actually be under consideration here is Sangharakshita's links with the Zen and Chan traditions, Govinda was not a master of any of the Asian Buddhist traditions, he was simply someone who gained popularity on the basis of a scant connection with the Tibetan tradition and because he happened to be around as 'Shangri la` became more popular in the West. The Response's authors citation of him and indeed the long-standing citation of his friendship with Sangharakshita as evidence of his connection with the Tibetan tradition throughout the history of the FWBO amounts to nothing more than wanton and premeditated 'name dropping`; such connections prove nothing other than that there were some very bizarre characters in India in the 1950s.
Response:
[p5] "In this period Sangharakshita described himself as a
'triyana Buddhist' - his Kalimpong base was called the Triyana Vardhana Vihara -
and his approach provided a basis for his subsequent connections with lamas who
were themselves followers of Tibetan triyana. While this approach may be
unacceptable or incomprehensible by the standards of the Files, his endeavours
to establish a triyana approach were widely applauded and won the support of
figures such as the Dalai Lama and Govinda, who wrote:
'Probably for the first time in the history of Buddhism the Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana have found a common centre in the Triyana Vardhana Vihara. This is an important step forward on the road towards the unification of Buddhism... a creative cooperation, in which the best of each [yana] contributes to the attainment of the highest aim and helps us to see the Buddha-Dharma in its whole depth and width.'"
Whereas the three vehicle approach in the Tibetan tradition is based on the wisdom of generations of enlightened masters and has a long and proven history of efficacy running back for more than a thousand years, the 'triyanist` approach which Sangharakshita claims as his own is based on the ideas of a 'monk` with a proven history of lying, drug taking and sexual misconduct and whose knowledge is based on little, if any formal training in any of the Asian traditions and a few superficial, sometimes unsubstantiated, relationships with teachers of any of the same. The consequences of practising this 'triyana Buddhism`, as the Guardian article demonstrated and this work will further show, have been psychological trauma and even suicide.
Citing the Dalai Lama when the FWBO are supposedly answering questions concerning Sangharakshita's training in the Zen Buddhist tradition is as curious as the citation of Govinda and is probably done for the same reasons. It certainly does have the effect of making it look as if the Dalai Lama is a supporter of Sangharakshita's activities. However, when consulted, the response of the Office of Tibet was to state that the message of congratulation to the Triyana Vardhana Vihara referred to in the Response was issued at a time when His Holiness had only recently emerged from Tibet and was therefore obviously keen to ensure that the various Buddhist schools drew together in order to establish a strong tradition of Dharma in the West. When I explained that, in light of the emerging truths about the FWBO and their 'founder`, it might be appropriate for His Holiness to issue a statement disassociating himself from them, the Office's response was to state that, since the message did not express support for Sangharakshita personally, nor was their any evidence of any strong links between His Holiness and Sangharakshita, nor had the Dalai Lama expressed support for the activities of the FWBO, then there was obviously no reason for the issue of such a statement.
Thus, although the Response's authors use the name of the Dalai Lama to create the illusion of sanction of the highest order, the reality of the situation is that no such sanction of their leader or organization has ever existed. In light of the comments made by the Dalai Lama which feature at the beginning of this document and the fact that the Office of Tibet are now fully aware of Sangharakshita and the FWBO's activities, it is also clear that unless the FWBO distance themselves from their disgraced leader and stop preaching false Dharma, it never will.
Govinda's statement that the founding of the Vihara was: "the first time in the history of Buddhism (that) the Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana have found a common centre" serves to demonstrate his lack of understanding of the tradition he claimed to follow, the teachings of the various traditons of Tibetan Buddhism representing as they do the quintessential 'triyana` approach to Buddhism. In other words, every single temple and monastery in Tibet was a 'Triyana Vihara`.
Response:
[p5] "An important figure for Sangharakshita was Yogi
Chen.....The Files claims that 'no independent confirmation of the relationship
[between Sangharakshita and Yogi Chen] exists. `However, a book entitled
Buddhist Meditation: Systematic and Practical, comprises transcriptions by
Bhikkhu Khantipalo of teachings given by Yogi Chen to Sangharakshita and
Khantipalo in Kalimpong in 1962...The Files makes various attacks on Chen's
reputation because 'he was not an authorized teacher of any of the Japanese or
Chinese Buddhist systems.`"
The Files actually states "No independent confirmation of the relationship exists. However, even if it did, this would be no proof of authentic knowledge of Zen. Mr. Chen was not an authorized teacher of any of the Chinese or Japanese Buddhist systems". The Files author was clearly unaware of the existence of the work 'Buddhist Meditation: Systematic and Practical`, edited by Bhikkhu Khantipalo (whose credibility as a witness we shall return to later), printed as it was in 1967 solely for free distribution [See Response, note 24]. Confirmation does then exist.
However, as the Files states, whether independent confirmation exists or not, Sangharakshita's encounter with Chen is no proof of knowledge of Zen, since Chen was not an authorized teacher of either Chan or Zen. The Response fails to address this. Rather, it tries to fudge the issue by carefully and conveniently omitting the sentence "However, even if it did, this would be no proof of authentic knowledge of Zen" since this demonstrates the author's willingness to concede that such confirmation might exist. This is disingenuous sophism of the worst kind.
To recap the Files, Chen was not an authorized teacher of either the Chinese or Japanese traditions. He was clearly an eclectic, and was considered a barking mad renegade by some; his 'Fire Puja of Jesus` would seem to confirm both these points. Any claim to authentic knowledge of either Zen or Chan on the basis of a relationship with such a character is therefore an obvious nonsense. Sangharakshita makes such a claim. This, combined with the reading of a handful of archaic English language translations of texts from these traditions, acted as the basis for his determining the essence of Zen. Such scant knowledge of a tradition is an entirely inadequate foundation for one engaged in so significant a task as discerning such an essence.
Response:
[p5] "The Files makes various attacks on Chen's reputation
......in the same way that it disputes Sangharakshita's legitimacy, and without
argument or investigation."
The accompanying footnote advises the investigative reader to look to Chen's own account of his training for confirmation of his authenticity. Relying on self-validating testimony is a fundamental mistake FWBO followers have made for decades and, as has already been stated, makes as little sense as expecting an honest answer from a burglar when questioned as to whether he commited the crime.
The footnote then quotes Chen's own account of the depth of his relationship, not with the Chinese or Japanese traditions, but with various masters of the Tibetan tradition. This is simply another disingenuous fudge. Obviously, involvement with the Tibetan tradition, imagined or otherwise, does not qualify one to teach or authorise others to teach Zen.
The note concludes with the claim that Chen:
[n26] "spent one month with
Kalu Rinpoche and became a holder of Shenba Kagyu Lineage and qualified to pass
it on, also completing a three year solitary retreat for these latter
teachings."
This accidentally demonstrates the ignorance of the compilers of the Response. There is no Shenba Kagyu tradition to become a lineage holder of. One suspects, due to the proximity of Kalu Rinpoche's name, that it is the Shangpa Kagyu which is being referred to. Again, the mere completion of a three year retreat in any of the Tibetan traditions does not qualify one to become a lineage holder, as the authors would know if they had even a basic knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism.
The section in the main body of the text concludes:
[p5] "Alternative
views [as to his authenticity] may be obtained from some of Chen's many
disciples."
Chen's disciples, like Sangharakshita's, rely on his own account of his spiritual heritage. They therefore only repeat the 'truth` about Chen as it was told to them by him. Don't the FWBO realise that, when entering into such a significant relationship as that which one forms with a spiritual teacher, far greater scrutiny is required than that demonstrated by the thoroughly gullible blind faith approach of 'I believe him because he said so`?
Response:
[p5] "Sangharakshita is not a follower of Tibetan Buddhism, nor
is he a Vajrayana teacher, and the FWBO is not and does not claim to be a
Tibetan Buddhist tradition."
The above represents a welcome, although somewhat belated, admission. However, isn't it true that on coming to the FWBO, people are promised that they are joining a '3 vehicle` tradition? If Sangharakshita can't teach Vajrayana then how can this be true?
[p5] " Sangharakshita's principal engagement with Tibetan Buddhism in his teaching is in the many seminars he gave during the 1970s and 1980s on texts from many traditions, including Tibetan Vajrayana."
Didn't the Response just say that Sangharakshita is not a Vajrayana teacher? Why then does he give teachings and seminars on Tibetan Vajrayana? Why, between 1978 and 1980, did Windhorse Press produce a series of eight booklets, based on Sangharakshita's lectures, entitled 'The Tantric Path`?
Response:
[p5] "Sangharakshita received numerous initiations from highly
respected Lamas, as outlined below. It must be admitted that much of this is not
provable in all of its details, although it is demonstrable in sufficient detail
to be entirely believable."
Which is exactly why this list of the initiations Sangharakshita supposedly received appears here: not because it is proof but because it appears to be believable. And whose account of Sangharaksita's 'numerous` (and notably minor) tantric initiations is this list based upon? Er, why, Sangharakshita's of course.
Response:
[p5-6] "The Files ... makes the unsubstantiated claim that
Trungpa Rimpoche said Sangharakshita had 'definitely received no higher
initiations, unless by false pretenses'".
Trungpa Rinpoche made the comment to Maurice Walshe. Maurice Walshe confirmed this to the Files author, both in writing and during interviews. Surely this constitutes substantiation?
Response:
[p6] "and it argues that Sangharakshita could not have
communicated with them in Tibetan (in fact he spoke in Hindi or Nepali, with
translators as necessary)."
Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro had a perfectly adequate Tibetan to English translator in Sonam Kazi. Why, as was pointed out in the Files, was Sonam Kazi unable to confirm any relationship between Sangharakshita and Jamyang Khyentse? Again why, with a well trained Tibetan/English translator, would translators into languages other than Tibetan (which Khyentse Rinpoche would obviously only possess a minimal understanding of, having only recently emerged from Tibet), be necessary or of any value? Further, is it realistically possible for a master to convey the essence of the Tibetan tantric tradition and all of its subtleties in its entirety through the medium of a mixture of broken English, Hindi and Nepali, three languages that Jamyang Khyentse barely understood?
Response:
[p6] "In 1956 Chattrul Sangye Dorje Rimpoche gave
Sangharakshita the initiation of Green Tara, the sadhana of which he says he
faithfully performed every day for seven years."
Ignoring this particular incidence of self validation, what is of real interest here is the word 'gave`, the repeatedly used, chosen phrase of the authors of the Response when referring to Sangharakshita's receipt of initiations; 'so & so Rimpoche GAVE Sangharakshita such & such an intitiation`. As the Files points out (p8), the minor initiations listed by the Response's authors were routinely bestowed on hundreds, indeed thousands of people. Sangharakshita was not singled out as some highly important being to be 'given` these initiations. He 'took` them, along with hundreds of others, in an atmosphere where his presence was only as significant as that of any of the hundreds of others who were in attendance.
Furthermore, without underestimating the power or ability of those lamas who bestowed them, for these initiations to have had any significant effect, one would have thought it necessary for Sangharakshita to have understood at least a little of what was going on, in terms of prayers, sworn commitments, visualizations and so on. All initiations are preceeded by the taking of Refuge and Bodhisattva vows. Nearly all of the initiations Sangharakshita claims to have received, he took in the 1950s. Yet he gives the date of his highly significant first receipt of the Bodhisattva vow from Dhardo Rinpoche as 12 October 1962. Obviously, Sangharakshita had absolutely no idea whatsoever of what was going on around him during the initiations he received, otherwise he would know that he had taken the Bodhisattva ordination many years before. In such an atmosphere how can he have possibly have received anything other than some minor blessing, equivalent perhaps to that received by some newborn Tibetan child , who, like Sangharakshita, was present at the initiation but, equally, had no idea whatsoever of what was going on. Perhaps this was why Sangharakshita felt his receipt of the Bodhisattva vow from Dhardo Rinpoche was of such immense "spiritual significance": it was clearly the first time in all of the years that he had been taking the Bodhisattva vows that he actually realized he was receiving them.
One can see it now: the Inji Gelong (Tib, Colloquialism - 'Western monk`), deep in concentration at the lama's feet, imbibing the sweet nectar of his vajra holy speech, meditating deeply on the significance of the initiation process as its subtle intricacies unfolded before him. The reality of the situation however was that despite appearances, who was sitting there was a fraud, someone only dressed as a monk, and what's more, someone who had no idea whatsoever of what was going on. This is probably what Trungpa Rinpoche meant when he said that Sangharakshita had "definitely received no higher initiations, unless by false pretences". Chilling to think that, within little more than a decade, Sangharakshita was claiming to have discerned the essence of the entire Tibetan tantric tradition, indeed the whole of Buddhism in general.
Response:
[p6] " Sangharakshita asked Jamyang Khyentse Rimpoche for the
Manjughosa initiation. However Rimpoche decided to give him the initiations of
Avalokitesvara, Vajrapani and Green Tara as well. Jamyang Khyentse commissioned
for Sangharakshita a thangka depicting the four Bodhisattvas and nineteen great
Buddhist teachers. Sangharakshita himself was shown twice, once teaching the
Dharma and again meditating in a cave. Rimpoche explained that through this
initiation he had transmitted to Sangharakshita the essence of all the teachings
of all the gurus in the thangka. Sangharakshita was now, he said, their
spiritual heir and successor."
Sangharakshita's claim that Khyentse Rinpoche told him that, in receiving 4 relatively minor initiations, he had become the 'spiritual heir and successor` to the founding gurus of each of the Tibetan traditions as well as numerous other important figures is an extraordinary claim to make, considering that the Drub thab Kundu alone (the source from which Jamyang Khyentse would have drawn these) contains approximately 625 initiations. So we can conclude that it is unlikely, to say the least, that Jamyang Khyentse ever said this, particularly because the 'substantiating` reference is to Sangharakshita's own account. Not even His Holiness the Dalai Lama or Sakyan Trizin are credited with being the successors to all of these beings.
And where is this important thangka, 'commissioned` by Jamyang Khyentse, a thangka which, if it existed, one would have thought would have been emblazoned across the cover of Sangharakshita's 'tantric` works? Why, in the keeping of his friend Dr. Mehta of course, at the Society of the Servants of God, Malabar Hill, Bombay [see Response note 32], obviously for ease of reference. Perhaps if the FWBO now make efforts to bring this important work to the West (which, I am informed, they already have, but without success) they might also produce evidence that it was commissioned by Jamyang Khyentse.
Response:
[p6] "At the same time he received instruction in the Tharpe
Delam and especially its mula yoga practices from Kachu Rimpoche and Dhardo
Rimpoche."
The attempt to make a connection with the Tharpa`i bDe-lam represents a further unwitting indicator of the ignorance of Sangharakshita and his followers. This of course is the ngondro, or 'foundational practice`, for the dKon-mchog sPyi-'dus cycle which , one hazards a guess, was the cycle of Padmasambhava whose initiation he received. If they had known this they would have been sure to mention it. As a question to this, I ask them to immediately name, without consulting others:
a) the terton of this system, and
b) the author of the commentary?
The phrase 'mula yoga` is extremely curious. If translated into Tibetan it would presumably be rtsa-ba'irnal-'byor; no such phrase exists within the Tharpa'i bDe-lam. Perhaps what is being referred to is the ngondro, the 'bum-lnga` (500,000 recitations of Refuge, Bodhicitta, Vajrasattva mantra etc.). If Sangharakshita had accomplished these we would, I think, have been informed.
All of this is important because in the Nyingma tradition the accomplishment of the ngondro is the essential pre-requisite for the receipt and practice of the inner tantras, including rdzogs chen itself. So, we can surely conclude that Sangharakshita's 'close personal connection with the Nyingmapa tradition` is confined to the receipt of a few minor initiations and does not include the completion of even its most elementary contemplative levels. The idea that such a person posesses the spiritual authority to discern and then teach the essence of Tibetan Buddhism is ludicrous.
The assertion that Sangharakshita received instruction on the practices of the Tharpa'i bDe-lam from the Gelugpa lama Dhardo Rinpoche is equally ludicrous. Quite apart from the fact that he was also a devotee of the demonic spirit Dorje Shugden, who is said to inflict illness and death on Gelugpa monks who embrace Nyingma teachings (S.Batchelor, 'Deity or Demon` p63 Tricycle), Dhardo Rinpoche himself was an extremely orthodox practitioner of the teachings of Lama Tzong Khapa's Gelug tradition, whose followers were known to frown at the mere mention of the 'philosophically inferior` and 'heterodox` Nyingma doctrine of rdzogs-chen. (See G.Samuels 'Civilized Shamans` for an extended account of the disagreements between the two traditions and their philosophies). That the Gelugpa Dhardo Rinpoche would give instruction on the Nyingma Tharpa'i bDe-lam is therefore about as unlikely as the Pope giving instruction on the works of John Calvin.
Response:
[p6] "Sangharakshita spent most time, and developed the deepest
connection, with Dhardo Rimpoche, a Gelug lama and Lharampa Geshe, which
continued from 1953 until Rimpoche's death in 1991. They became friends during a
trip together as 'Eminent Buddhists from the Border Areas' on a trip organised
by the Indian Government to celebrate Buddha Jayanti in 1956. He became closely
involved with the Rimpoche's teaching of Tibetan Buddhism through rewriting a
contribution by one of the Rimpoche's Tibetan disciples to a book eventually
published in 1956 as The Path of the Buddha.
Eventually Sangharakshita took the Bodhisattva ordination from Dhardo Rimpoche and received from him a detailed explanation of the sixty-four precepts taken at the time of ordination. For Sangharakshita the spiritual significance of this occasion was immense"
From the Response's own words it appears that Sangharakshita's studies in the Gelug tradition amount to:
a) A friendship with Dhardo Rinpoche, during which he helped edit a book.
b) Receipt of the Bodhisattva ordination
Admittedly, Sangharakshita did engage in occasional sessions of studying Gelugpa teachings with Dhardo Rinpoche, as evidenced by his not contradicting Stephen Batchelor's account of this particular part of his history. However, the combination of a friendship with a lama, occasional sessions of study, and receipt of the Bodhisattva ordination represents a very far cry from the vast textual studies undertaken by those who are fully learned in the Gelug tradition, such as Geshe George Dreyfus and Geshe Michael Roach.
The question might arise as to why Sangharakshita did not deny the validity of Batchelor's assertions with reference to his training when given the opportunity to do so. Actually, Batchelor represents everything Sangharakshita would want to be but never was. Someone who maintained pure morality for years as a monk whilst living in the traditional Buddhist environment of the monastic community (something Sangharakshita never did), someone who had strong links with his Buddhist peers and teachers, and a solid understanding of more than one scripture-based tradition and the language of its conveyance. Like Sangharakshita, Batchelor spent time in India and was familiar with many of the characters, both in the Orient and the Occident, whom Sangharakshita himself had encountered.
This is why Sangharakshita kept quiet when presented with Batchelor's draft. Batchelor knew too much about Buddhism and what actually went on during Sangharakshita's time in India for him to deny it. Whereas in the West, where people have little understanding of the nature of training in Buddhist traditions or their actual philosophies , as well no knowledge whatsoever of Sangharakshita's lifestyle, it has been possible for him to create his own history and pass off his own personal version as Buddhism for years, in the presence of someone who demonstrated knowledge of what actually constitutes Buddhist teaching and who was aware of the true extent of his training and shenanigans, Sangharakshita could only remain silent.
Sangharakshita's attitude to initiations
Response:
[p6] "Whatever the exact status of these initiations within
their respective systems of tantric practice, the issue is really one of
interpretation - how one sees the significance of these initiations."
This is nonsense. Within the context of the 'new' tantric traditions (ie post-eleventh century) for example, whereas it is possible to achieve Enlightenment in one lifetime by practising the highest of the four levels of tantra, it is not possible to do so in the same period of time by practising any of the three lower levels. For genuine tantric practitioners this is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact. (See the Dalai Lama's 'Tantra in Tibet`series). If the Response authors had any understanding whatsoever of tantric doctrine they would have known this. Thus the statement that...
Response:
[p6] "Sangharakshita holds that 'there are no higher teachings,
only deeper realisations`"
only proves that he knows nothing about the various divisions of tantric practice. Notice that, in this peculiarly self serving formulation that "there are no higher teachings, only deeper realisations", Sangharakshita is tacitly admitting that he has received none. This point goes to the heart of the charge of arrogance; how can he claim to know and teach the heart of Buddhism when he has not received it? It is as arrogant as saying one has understood the unity of all sciences when one has got no further than first year General Science.
Response:
[p6] "This is in contrast to the view expressed in the Files
which says, for example, that 'the average Tibetan would probably feel as
excited about the possibility of receiving the Bodhisattva ordination as the
average Westerner would feel about the possibility of receiving a new National
Insurance number.'
The accompanying footnote [n42] states:
"The average Tibetan does not
take the 64 precepts of Bodhisattva Samvara Sila on numerous occasions - they
recite a verse before initiations which stands in place of more elaborate
Bodhisattva vows. Sangharakshita took the 64 precepts in a spirit of great
seriousness. Many Tibetan Lamas likewise regard them as serious. For instance
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Dudjom Rimpoche have both written books on the
subject."
Those who care to actually examine Kelsang Gyatso's book, 'The Bodhisattva Vow` (Tharpa 1991, p115) will note that the second precept of aspiring bodhicitta is 'to generate bodhicitta six times a day`. How do Tibetan Buddhists achieve this? By formally taking the Bodhisatva vow six times a day or, more than 2,000 times per year; not surprisingly practitioners sometimes lack a sense of inspiration when taking the vow, despite the extreme significance of the event. Were the authors of the Response holders of the Bodhisattva vows, they would have known this.
Response:
[p6] "While Sangharakshita plainly is experienced in aspects of
Vajrayana, his authority to draw inspiration from the Tibetan tradition in his
teaching, and to pass on some of its insights and practices, is based not on the
number of initiations he received, or their formal status, but on the sincerity
and effectiveness of his practice, the clarity of his understanding, and the
depth of his realisation."
The assertion that Sangharakshita's "authority to to draw inspiration from the Tibetan tradition and to pass on some of its insights and practices" is based on "the depth of his realisation" is as serious an argument as one's friends insisting to one's first year science teacher that one has an intuitive realisation of the deeper principles of physics. He would be very foolish indeed to take their word for it, and indeed, both in the Dharma and the world in general, it is only one's teachers who are actually in a position to judge. Sangharakshita is, on the other hand, a self-validating teacher, 'appointed` only by himself and those he has duped.
The footnote [n43] which ends this section is a gem:
"On the connected
issue of lineage Sangharakshita comments: 'I have discouraged [emphasis on] this
because it seems to lead to a sort of spiritual snobbery. So I don't like to
speak in terms of lineage or lineage holder; though I suppose, if I wanted to, I
could quite legitimately say that I was a lineage holder in that sense. But I
would rather not mention that or stress that, for the reasons I have mentioned.
I think it is so, in a way, childish.'"
Thus, in Sangharakshita's eyes, those holding the title lineage holder are engaged in the perpetuation of "spiritual snobbery" or being "childish" (except, of course the venerable Maha sthavira himself who, one sentence later, claims exactly that title). Is he including here the lineage masters of all four Tibetan traditions or simply those other than the ones with whom he feels a "close connection"? It is glaringly obvious that Sangharakshita does not "like to speak in terms of lineage or lineage holder" because he is not one; this is the real reason why he would "rather not mention that or stress that"; because it undermines the false image of his own authority.
Response:
[p7] "As has been said, Sangharakshita does not claim to teach
Vajrayana Buddhism" (accompanied by note 44) - "Note that in this in this matter
of 'utmost importance` the Files presents no evidence that Sangharakshita claims
this"
Within the Response we have so far learned that Sangharakshita gives seminars on the Vajrayana, has had a series of books published on the topic, and that he teaches, not only the purified essence of the 'culturally contaminated` tantric vehicle, but the essence of all of the three vehicles of Buddhism; Hinayana, Mahayana & Vajrayana. In the footnote mentioned above he even claims the status of lineage holder. It seems hardly necessary for the Files to have presented evidence that Sangharakshita claims to teach Vajrayana Buddhism; the Response has done a wonderful job of proving just that.
Response:
[p7] "Secondly, Sangharakshita had the approval of his teachers
in his general approach to practice."
According to, er, Sangharakshita.
Response:
[p7] "Sangharakshita says that he consulted his teachers about
his proposed move back to Britain and his decision to start a new Buddhist
movement, and received their blessing for this."
"Sangharakshita says"? Well, it must be true then. Did these teachers give their blessings on the basis of the knowledge that he was going to perform sexual 'experiments` on disciples whilst claiming to be a bhikkhu? Did he inform them that he would be portraying the nuclear family as the enemy of the spiritual community? Did he explain to his tantric gurus that he would be teaching that women are ensnared in the lower evolution, a conception which directly contradicts fundamental tantric philosophy?
Response:
[p7] "Thirdly, Sangharakshita has been given permission to
initiate, but such matters are private between guru and chela and are not the
subject of public discussion."
We can pass over this claim with contempt for the self serving rubbish that it obviously is. Nobody in the tantric tradition has ever heard of such a rule before.
Response:
[p7] "The FWBO is not a school of Vajrayana, nor has it ever
claimed this status, and members of the Western Buddhist Order are not tantric
practitioners."
Why doesn't the FWBO publicise the above admission? If the FWBO is not a vajrayana school, does not claim such status, nor are its members tantric practitioners, the FWBO does not therefore practice a three vehicle system; at best it is two vehicle. This author would have no complaint if they would admit this. If Theravadins and others wished to criticize the way the Order lay illegitimate claim to their systems, that is their business.
Response:
[p7] "Sangharakshita and the FWBO respect the integrity of the
tantra as a system and claim no status within its terms. The meditation
practices given to members of the Western Buddhist Order may well derive from
tantra, but they are not conceived as tantric practices. They are seen as
expressions of going for Refuge to the Three Jewels in relation to the Buddhas
and Bodhisattvas. The 'initiation' at the ordination ceremony of the WBO is not
seen as a tantric initiation, nor does it resemble tantric initiation or
empowerment."
This paragraph admits to the FWBOs cannibalizing of tantra; "Western Buddhist Order practices "may well derive from tantra, but they are not conceived of as tantric practices". With customary arrogance, the Order assume that they know better than the lineages. The final sentence should be utilized as a health warning at their 'ordination` ceremonies: "The 'initiation` at the ordination ceremony of the WBO is not seen as a tantric initiation, nor does it resemble tantric initiation or empowerment."
Response:
[p7] "As a western Buddhist movement the FWBO does not follow
the approach to studying Dharma texts that was developed by Indian or Tibetan
scholasticism...Dharma study is taken seriously within the FWBO...In common with
most Buddhists in the West we would regard the masterpieces of Buddhist
canonical literature as the common property of humanity, and rightful subjects
of study and reflection for all, irrespective of the scholastic conventions of
Tibet."
The traditional way of study is now dismissed as 'the scholastic conventions of Tibet`. Again, this is self-serving and actually represents the fact that Sangharakshita has had no such training. That this represents a recipe for intellectual and spiritual confusion is evidenced by the books offered as references [see Response note 51]. 2 questions:
1) Do the Order know how reliable these translations are? Answer - no. Otherwise they would not attempt to understand the Kagyu tradition through Chang's highly flawed Milarepa books.
2) How on earth can there be any logical order or progression to acquiring the view if one mixes together these works? For example, Kelsang Gyatso's Gelugpa Prasangika interpretation of the Bodhicharyavatara with Gampopa's 'Jewel Ornament`, filtered through Guenther?
Why don't Kulanada et al go and study these texts slowly and in detail with masters who have received the transmission and then explanation from truly learned people. This is the main point: why be contented with a poor diet of second hand food filtered through Sangharakshita, why not go and learn the traditions properly? Each senior Order member should go to a different tradition and learn it carefully from different masters, realise it and THEN they can transmit it to Westerners. This would be Western Buddhism. Right now these people are imprisoned in the ego of Sangharakshita.
Face it, no real teacher claims to have discovered the essence of all Buddhism. Rather, with becoming modesty, they act only as conductors of the tradition they have learned while exhibiting true friendship to other Buddhist traditions. This is real non-sectarianism. It allows all the traditions to flourish without allowing their teachings to be reduced to a nondescript 'porridge` dressed up as 'an attempt to discern those aspects of Buddhism that are universal`. Why don't these people come out of the darkness and into the sunlight of Dharma?
Response:
[p7] "The Files asserts that 'Sangharakshita would have great
difficulty in finding any bona fide, knowledgeable Buddhists who would concur
with his interpretations of the meaning of Buddhism.' The facts of the matter,
however, indicate just the opposite. Indeed, there are a number of respected and
well-known Buddhist scholars within the Western Buddhist Order itself."
Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Tzong Khapa, Buddhaghosa et al, are examples of 'Buddhist scholars`. Those 'Buddhist scholars` cited by the Response as evidence that their interpretation of Buddhism is valid are, on the other hand, present day academics who are also FWBO members! It is no surprise then, that they would support the assertion that the FWBOs teachings are valid. The point the Files made was that Sangharakshita and the FWBO would have difficulty in finding any bona fide, knowledgeable Buddhists who would concur with their interpretations, not a handful of FWBO academics.
Summary of Sangharakshita's Training
Response:
[p7] "It should be clear from the above that Sangharakshita has
not lied about his training."
No, quite the opposite. If one reads the Response properly, paying attention to the implicit and explicit admissions, fudges, discrepancies and untruths inherent within it, it becomes quite clear that Sangharakshita has constantly "lied about his training".
Response:
[p7] "In its pan-Buddhist character this training is certainly
unusual, and may be unacceptable by the standards of the Files."
His training is not merely unusual, it is also inadequate and is not acceptable by the standards of the Files, of any genuine Buddhists, or indeed of honest people in general.
Response:
[p7] " However Sangharakshita has presented a cogent, arguably
compelling, alternative to these standards which by comparison appear stunted,
not to say fundamentalist."
The 'standards` demonstrated by Sangharakshita have amounted to lying, cheating and deceiving the British public, indeed the whole of the Western world, for the last three decades. Is it really so "stunted" and "fundamentalist" to expect a spiritual teacher to tell the truth, or to expect a bhikkhu not to have sex and take drugs?
Section IV. Sangharakshita's career
a) Sangharakshita's Involvement with Ambedkarism
Response:
[p7] "The Files asserts that Sangharakshita makes a 'claim that
he officiated at a ceremonial mass conversion of [Dr. Ambedkar and] half a
million Harijans (Untouchables) to Buddhism.' This, it says, is spurious as
Sangharakshita was in Sikkim at the time of this conversion. Neither the FWBO
nor Sangharakshita has ever claimed that Sangharakshita conducted the
conversion."
This is accompanied by the following footnote [n53]:
"The accusation that
Sangharakshita claims to have officiated at Ambedkar's conversion ceremony would
appear to derive from a similar mistake in Snelling's Buddhist Handbook, which
the Files' author has either failed to check against FWBO sources, or else has
knowingly used as a basis for a smear.....The most charitable explanation of
this blatant untruth is that the author of the Files is so convinced of
Sangharakshita's dishonesty that any apparent inconsistency is seized on; but in
this case, there is no doubt whatsoever that Sangharakshita has never claimed to
have been present at the ceremony. The less charitable explanation is that the
Files author is himself lying. Neither possibility reflects well upon him and
each raises questions about his motivation, and credibility."
Readers will note the Response's statement that:"The Files asserts that Sangharakshita makes" the claim that he officiated at the famous mass conversion of Untouchables at Nagpur in 1956. It continues, "Neither the FWBO nor Sangharakshita has ever claimed that Sangharakshita conducted the conversion" and then goes on in the accompanying footnote to accuse the Files author of "knowingly" "lying" in respect of this, an action which, it is claimed "raises questions about his motivation, and credibility".
This is a fudge. Those who examine the Files thoroughly will find that it does not accuse either Sangharakshita or the FWBO of making the above claim. The assertion that Sangharakshita was at Nagpur in 1956 is clearly referenced in the footnotes of the Files to John Snelling in his 'Buddhist Handbook` (Files footnote 21). By falsely accusing the author of having lied about this, the Response's authors provide themselves with a starting point for launching into an extremely vitriolic attack on the person of the Files author as well as his motives and credibility. But it is clear from the Files itself that the author never makes such an assertion. Surely such deception raises questions about the Response's authors motivation and credibility.
One of the most common responses noted to the section concerning Ambedkar and the Untouchables has been one of disbelief: "I can't believe he was not there, I was sure that he was". Those who made such comments can be forgiven for assuming this; the FWBO have made much of Sangharakshita's encounter with Ambedkar and his involvement in those conversions which became commonplace subsequent to his death. The Order continue to perpetuate this illusion by building up their standing amongst Untouchables in India right down to the present day, engaging in charity work which has considerably enhanced their reputation, both in India and abroad.
This has led to some assuming that Sangharakshita was actually at Nagpur for the famous mass conversion, thus rendering him, in their eyes, "a significant figure in an important Indian historic and religious event" [Response p8]. The Response's claim however that it "is for history to determine" whether this was actually the case or not is quite incorrect; the Response itself makes it quite clear that he was not.
Genuine Ambedkarite Buddhists in India are outraged by all of the above for, in drawing funds to themselves, the FWBO's Karuna Trust are actually cutting the charitable lifeline to Ambedkar's true devotees, whose motives for wishing to engage in charitable work are nothing more than the desire to benefit 'Untouchables`. The FWBO on the other hand, stand to profit considerably from their activities, for in ingratiating themselves with 'Untouchables` they gradually create the image of themselves as a genuine, altruistic Buddhist movement with strong Indian links.
b) Sangharakshita's involvement with British Buddhism in the 1960s
Wear the yellow robe
But if you are reckless
You will fall into
darkness
Dhammapada 22:2
In commenting on the 'rumours` of sexual impropriety surrounding Sangharakshita's dismissal from his post as incumbent at the Hampstead Buddhist Vihara, the Response tells us:
Response:
[p8]"The trustees of the EST subsequently attempted to stem the
rumours when the situation had become riven with gossip."
This is accompanied by the following footnote[n57]:
"The Ven.
Sangharakshita - A Statement. The Directors of the English Sangha Trust Ltd.
wish it to be known that in deciding to replace the Ven. Sthavira Sangharakshita
in the office of Chief Incumbent at the Hampstead Buddhist Vihara they are not
making any charge of impropriety or misconduct against him. The Directors hope
that whatever may have been said to the detriment of his character in the course
of recent speculation and gossip may now be withdrawn and that all concerned may
turn their energies to the study and practice of the Dharma.' The Buddhist,
February 1967."
Here we have another tactic the Order employ elsewhere in the document; quotation from persons or bodies which appear to confirm that Sangharakshita was never guilty of any wrongdoing, whereas in fact they represent honourable attempts to clean up the mess Sangharakshita left behind him and at the same time protect the reputation of Buddhism in the West. In a sense, they are attempts to get the 'cat back into the bag` after more and more people began to ask questions about the real reasons behind Sangharakshita's expulsion from the Hampstead Buddhist Vihara. Although they appear to be written to protect the reputation of the FWBO's leader, these letters were actually written to protect the reputation of something far more important; that of the Dharma itself, something which Sangharakshita himself clearly had no regard for.
After misusing the above letter to establish Sangharakshita's innocence of all charges of sexual impropriety, the footnote then quotes from a letter posted on an Internet newsgroup. It states:
Response:
[57] "In November 1997 Lance Cousins, an academic and seasoned
observer of these issues commented: 'I heard various claims that
S[angharakshita] was asked to leave India in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I
have never believed them, since they surfaced after feelings had become both
public and very bitter."
The remaining UNQUOTED part of Lance Cousins' posting (to newsgroups alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan, and uk.religion.buddhist, 13 Nov. 1997) continues:
"Some years earlier I myself saw written allegations of sexual activities on the part of Sangharakshita in India. This was before Sangharakshita arrived in England. All the allegations at that time concerned sexual activity in a ritual context. I have always assumed that he became involved with a Tibetan tantric group practising sexual and homosexual initiations. I had already formed that understanding before Mark Dunlop's involvement in Buddhism. The impression I get is that this had deteriorated into a series of 'affairs` by some time in the 1970s"
Readers will recall the Response branding the Files author a liar whose work was 'highly misleading`, it being based on 'selective quotation`.
Cousins' attribution of Sangharakshita's homosexual activities in India to his involvement in a Tibetan tantric group is based on a scant knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism (as he himself would be the first to admit); no tantric doctrine incorporates homosexual activity. In 1993, in the Priceless Jewel (Windhorse 1993), Sangharakshita describes the fact that the tantras contain no such doctrine as 'limiting`. Mark Dunlop's explanation of how he was seduced by Sangharakshita using the 'daka` argument (See Files, p 20 'The proper foundation for the spiritual life - the homosexual relationship`) indicates that this did not prevent him from 'experimenting`.
In refering to the accusation that Sangharakshita was expelled from India for the seduction of a young boy, the Response states:
Response:
[p8] "The Files cites 'three independent sources' (p.11) for
this accusation. Two of them are identified only by initials; the other quote is
twenty years old. These accounts are anonymous hearsay, and in the absence of
more substantial evidence must be regarded as rumours."
The use of initials in the Files is to protect the individuals concerned; it does not invalidate the quotes or render them untrue. Be that as it may, after some detective work, Kulananda did actually manage to identify 'FW`. The following is taken from a letter from FW, dated 25 May 1998, received by the Files' author soon after the release of the Files:
"Dear ,
Someone called Kulanada telephoned me to say that there is a
document circulating which refers to a conversation I am supposed to have had
with Christmas Humphreys about Kulanada's teacher Sangharakshita. He asked if he
could talk to me about it, for instance, if the reference was true. I said "It
is true". He sounded surprised. And that was about the end of the conversation."
FW subsequently confirmed, both in taped conversation and in writing that she would be willing to swear to this in the presence of an attorney. In portraying the testimony of FW as "anonymous hearsay", Kulananda, co-author of the Response, is therefore deliberately lying. He knew, after all, when he was writing the Response, exactly where this information came from.
JD, the second source, knew Sangharakshita and lived in Kalimpong at the time of his expulsion. If Kulananda wishes to confirm that, as the Files states "it was common knowledge there at the time of his expulsion that Sangharakshita had gone for the above reasons" (ie for the seduction of an underage boy), he need only consult Sangharakshita as to who JD might be and then contact him.
The fact that Chime Rigdzin Rinpoche of the Tibetan Nyingma tradition ( with which Sangharakshita feels such a 'close spiritual connection`) told the same story twenty years ago, obviously in no way renders it invalid.
Bhikkhu Khantipalo, one of Sangharakshita's English colleagues in India, is also cited, allegedly having said that Sangharakshita's behaviour in India was 'off the rails for a celibate monk', and that they parted because he 'found the homosexual evidence a bit hard to fit in with my idea of being a bhikkhu.' (Files p.11). In 1997 however, and in response to his mention in the Files, Khantipalo (now Lawrence Khantipalo) wished to set the story straight:
Response:
[p8] 'I regarded Sangharakshita as one of my Teachers and I was
grateful to him for the insights I had gained from living with him in Kalimpong,
Poona and Bombay. I have no evidence that Sangharakshita ever was involved in
any homosexual relationship. There were, of course, a number of young men at the
Vihara, visiting and occasionally staying but I saw no evidence of any sexual
relations.'
The letter continues in the footnotes [n62]:
'Before I went to Triyana
Vardhana Vihara I had the misfortune to listen to a person in robes who told me
stories - likely, I think, to be his own fantasies - about Sangharakshita's
sexual predilections. Perhaps my youth and inexperience may excuse (not to speak
of a fairly strong prudishness) my listening to this... Although I may have
written to Mark Dunlop a letter in March '91 - quite possibly I did - the
sentence [i.e. Mark's quoting of Khantipalo's alleged words], "But I found the
homosexual evidence..." sounds phony. What evidence? Did I have evidence then
that I do not now? I presume he is able to produce that letter. If indeed I did
write such a sentence, though it seems unlikely, I should make it plain that I
retract that remark entirely.'
Which is a bit like Billy Bunter saying 'No I didn't eat your beastly cake, and anyway it was horrible`. Of course Mark Dunlop is able to produce the letter, indeed the present author has seen all of the extensive supporting evidence for the Files allegations.
In the course of this particular piece of evidence, his letter of 28 March 1991 to Mark Dunlop, Khantipalo does in fact make all of those statements which he now subsequently denies. Khantipalo's statement to the FWBO does not therefore mean simply that his 'evidence for the prosecution` is no longer valid. More than this, it means that he is no longer a valid 'witness` for either the 'defence` or the 'prosecution`. Would any court of law in the land base its judgements on the word of a man whose word changes with the direction of the wind? We can therefore ignore the Response's reference to his clearly requested testimony.
Those genuinely interested in discovering the true reason for Sangharakshita's expulsion from India, particularly journalists with a will to travel, might take as their starting point his 'The Rainbow Road` and in particular the references to his relationship with Mr Sachin Kumar Singh, which, from his writings, seems more reminiscent of that between Wilde and Bosie than one between a teacher and student. Mr Singh may well be able to shed light on the truth behind the Files' disturbing allegation.
Response:
[p8] "The Files suggests that the threat of scandal was the
real background to Sangharakshita's invitation to return to the UK. As with any
conspiracy theory, this is impossible to disprove, but the Files account is
highly improbable."
Here, at last, is the "conspiracy theory" tactic. Note how it was never determined that there is a conspiracy. Rather the Response nonchalantly inserts the notion, as if its existence were already an established fact. Note also that the Response admits that it is impossible for them to disprove the allegations, although they wrongfully attribute their inability to do so to the Files allegations as being part of a 'conspiracy`. The real reason the FWBO have been unable to disprove any of the allegations in the Files is because they have their basis in fact.
Response:
[p8] "The strongest argument against it is the inherent
implausibility of an English High Court judge (Humphreys) and a senior Indian
official colluding in covering up a criminal act..."
This is one of the weakest and most ridiculous arguments in the whole of the FWBO's Response. Let us first examine the assertion that it is implausible that a High Court judge might collude in the cover up of a criminal act.
Readers will no doubt recall the quashing in July 1998 at the Court of Appeal of the conviction of Derek Bentley for the murder of PC Sidney Miles in November 1952. This was the famous 'Let him have it, Chris` case where the man who actually pulled the trigger, Christopher Craig, ultimately walked free and the 19 year old boy, Derek Bentley, who had instructed his friend to hand over the weapon, went to the gallows. The case is generally recognized as one of the greatest miscarriages of British justice to have occured in recent times.
When the judgement against Bentley was finally reversed, the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, laid much of the blame at the door of the then Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, and in particular on his thoroughly damning and biased summing-up. However, Goddard's conviction that Bentley was a guilty man who deserved to hang was based on the evidence as it had been presented to him by the prosecuting counsel. Not only had counsel presented a convincing argument for the prosecution, but he also withheld evidence that should have led to the freeing of Bentley on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Bentley, although physically 19 years old, had the mental age of an 11 year old. The prosecuting counsel had evidence of this but, realising that the case would likely be lost if it were to fall into the hands of the defence, kept it under wraps. The prosecuting counsel was Christmas Humphreys.
To describe the idea that someone such as Humphreys could collude in the cover up of a criminal act as 'inherently implausible`, as the Response does, is therefore an assertion worthy of the highest ridicule. Far from it, the fact of the matter is that Humphreys didn't just collude in the cover up of a criminal act, he colluded in the perpetration of one: the judicial murder of an innocent man. As the Files stated, Humphreys was also the man who sent Ruth Ellis, the last woman to hang in Britain and someone it is now clear should never have been executed on the grounds of diminished responsibility, to the gallows.
As to the assertion that an Indian politician would not collude in a criminal act, one wonders whether those who wrote the Response are actually living on planet Earth, it being common knowledge throughout the world that in India, the words 'politics` and 'corruption` are frequently synonymous.
Response:
[p8] "and [the inherent implausibility] of Humphreys risking
his reputation and the harmony of British Buddhism through a possible repetition
in the UK."
According to 'The Western Buddhist` (Winter 1967 p17), after his expulsion by the EST:
"Ven. Sangharakshita got in touch with friends who had supported his work at the Vihara, including Mr Christmas Humphreys, President of the Buddhist Society....Mr Humphreys, however, backed the Trust in their summary dismissal, and declined to assist."
It is patently obvious from this that Humphreys DID decide to risk his reputation, doubtless on the basis of another of Sangharakshita's 'promises` that he would behave himself and that there would be no repeat of his outrageous behaviour in India. Humphreys' unwillingness to support Sangharakshita in yet another of his darkest hours indicates that he was obviously furious at having his trust betrayed and, having given him his 'last chance` only to have it thrown back in his face, decided to have no more to do with him. It was years before Humphreys would speak to Sangharakshita again.
Thus the Response's assertion that the Files account of the reasons surrounding Sangharakshita's expulsion from India:
Response:
[p8] "does not square with the high regard in which Humphreys
publicly held both Sangharakshita and the FWBO, as is recorded in his
autobiography where he gives both his 'full support.' Indeed, Sangharakshita and
Humphreys were in regular contact from the early fifties right up until
Humphreys' death." is a complete nonsense; even the note accompanying this [n63]
tells us:
"..it is true that for a period after his departure from Hampstead there were difficulties between Sangharakshita and Humphreys..",
thus directly contradicting this statement.
We can pass over the following paragraph's offer of:
Response:
[p8] " A more straightforward explanation of the EST's
invitation to Sangharakshita..."
since we are here interested in discerning the truth, rather than the easiest way out of a contentious issue.
Response:
[p9] "Sangharakshita's incumbency at the Hampstead Vihara was
to end abruptly in November 1966 whilst he was in India when he received a
letter from the English Sangha Trusts's trustees. The Files ascribes the
trustees' decision to fear of sexual scandal."
The Files does not ascribe Sangharakshita's expulsion to the trustees "fear of sexual scandal". The Files states that the reasons for Sangharakshita's expulsion were:
a) he began bringing what Maurice Walshe described as "a string of young men of ill repute" (ie 'rent boys` and not 'hippies` as Response footnote 70 claims) back to the Vihara, and,
b) Khantipalo wrote to the EST withdrawing his support for Sangharakshita's appointment, a support which had swayed Maurice Walshe into giving Sangharakshita the benefit of the doubt and appointing him incumbent in the first place, despite increasing numbers of rumours trickling back from India to him about Sangharakshita's sexual exploits. No doubt Khantipalo will now write another letter claiming he never wrote such a letter, or that perhaps he did, but anyway, even if he did, he now withdraws any of the offending remarks (or not, as the case may be).
Thus, it was not "fear of sexual scandal" which prompted Sangharakshita's dismissal by the EST. Rather it was fear of the sexual scandal Sangharakshita was perpetrating there while claiming to be a bhikkhu becoming public knowledge that worried the EST, since this would blacken the name of the whole of Buddhism in Britain. This, as was pointed out previously, was the real reason the EST subsequently issued a statement that Sangharakshita was not guilty of any wrongdoing.
Response:
[p9] "While such fears may indeed have prompted the trustees'
action, at the same time records of the period also point to fundamental
differences in the approach to Buddhism of the parties concerned."
In other words, even if he was bringing back rent boys to the Vihara, there were much more important issues of approach at stake. One would have thought that the Chief Incumbent bhikkhu bringing men to the vihara for sex would have been enough to merit Sangharakshita's dismissal, even if the EST and he had agreed on issues of zeitgeist.
Response:
[p9] "The socially conventional and doctrinally sectarian
members of the English Sangha Trust, in particular Maurice Walshe,"
Read "Maurice Walshe and his cronies, the narrow minded and 'straight` old fuddy duddy, sectarian fundamentalist members of the English Sangha Trust "
Response:
[p9] "interpreted Sangharakshita as dangerously innovative"
"...dangerously innovative."? This is nothing more than 'sound byte` politics. The use of this term is an attempt to cast Sangharakshita as a hero of non-conformity, radical in his approach, even in the face of the "socially conventional, doctrinally sectarian" EST members. Readers will note that Charles Manson, another character who gained fame in the 60s, was also a 'radical non-conformist` who did not allow himself to be restricted by the 'social conventions` of American society (i.e. the laws of their criminal justice system). No, the real reason the EST dismissed Sangharakshita was not because they interpreted him as "dangerously innovative"; they simply interpreted him as plain old 'dangerous`.
Response:
[p9] "emphasising as he did the unity of all Buddhist schools
and teaching a socially-engaged, non-denominational approach to the Dharma. As
Stephen Batchelor writes:...."
The juxtaposition of a reference to Stephen Batchelor's work and the assertion that Sangharakshita teaches a 'socially engaged` form of Buddhism is an attempt to appeal to and establish a common cause with contemporary Buddhists of a similar predilection. However there are important distinctions between Sangharakshitan 'Buddhism` and that of those who advocate a socially engaged approach to their faith. Whereas the latter are pro-feminist for example, Sangharakshita has stated:
"The feminist reading of history as the story of Woman's opression by Man belongs not to history but to mythology"
(Incidentally, yet another quotation contained in the Files which the Response does not address)
Thus the above excerpt from the Response can be seen as much as an effort to accumulate allies by falsely claiming a common cause as it is an attempt at self-justification.
The decision to include as a footnote that which accompanies the quote from Batchelor, is a thoroughly astounding one and represents one of the biggest mistakes the authors of the Response make throughout the whole of their work for, in attempting to demonstrate the narrow mindednes of the EST, they unwittingly provide us with a list of at least some of the reasons why Sangharakshita was expelled from the vihara. It reads [n66]:
"In his January 1968 editorial Walshe adds, 'There are far too many spurious "Buddhists" about, whose self-invented teachings at best spread confusion and at worst, when combined with drug-taking and other practices, lead to moral degradation and personal tragedy. It is not only the right but the duty of true Buddhists to proclaim the genuine teaching and denounce imposters and spiritual demagogues... This as we have frequently repeated lately is a Theravada Vihara. There are respectable and responsible Oriental representatives of other Buddhist schools in Britain and of these we make no criticism: indeed we hold them in the highest esteem. But such tolerance implies no indiscriminate permissiveness, as some in 'robes' or otherwise, having misread the signs, have found to their cost."
Who was Walshe referring to when speaking of 'spurious Buddhists`, 'imposters` and 'spiritual demagogues`, of 'persons in 'robes` or otherwise`, other than the venerable Maha sthavira himself. Who else at the time was involved in preaching 'self-invented teachings`, 'combined with drug taking and other practices [?], which led 'to moral degradation and personal tragedy`? Since the editorial was written so soon after Sangharakshita's expulsion, it does not take the most brilliant of intellects to figure out to whom Maurice Walshe was referring.
Response:
[p9] "At Hampstead Sangharakshita was outspoken in his
criticisms of the formalism, or else lack of spiritual seriousness [!], he saw
in those around him... Sangharakshita had always regarded himself as first and
foremost a Buddhist - formal monasticism was a secondary matter."
Clearly.
Response:
[p9] "While continuing strictly to observe the major rules of
the monastic code,..."
In other words, disregarding all the 'minor` rules or 'sanghadisesas` such as 'not intentionally emitting semen`(1st sanghadisesa), 'not promoting schisms in the Sangha (10th sanghadisesa, as well as one of the five 'most heinous crimes` in Buddhism), 'not denying wrongdoings` (12th sanghadisesa), not causing others to lose faith through immoral behaviour (13th sanghadisesa).
Response:
[p9] "...he was not willing to fall in with others' ideas of
the rigidly prescribed role to which they felt he, as a bhikkhu, should conform.
He was not the narrowly conventional bhikkhu they wanted."
Meaning, what the 'narrowly conventional` EST wanted was a Theravadin bhikkhu who behaved like one and kept his vows. What they got was a bhikkhu