More Thoughts on Other Religions, Their Relations with Buddhism and Hurt People

It's an interesting confluence of things these days; I'm reading more about the anti-12 Step movement on line, and the more I read, the more I'm appalled.  I'm appalled not simply because 12 Step treatment for compulsive behaviors is so prevalent in the US and so ineffective, but also because the adherents of 12 Step groups - which are legally and in every other way religions - tend not to look on other religions as on a par with their 12 Step practices.

You can see this by looking, for example, how Buddhism is occasionally represented on a site like thefix.com, or my current bête noire,  one Ms. "InkyMama,"  who claims to be a "Buddhist" "meditation teacher" who is  "currently working on a forthcoming collection of meditations on the 12 Steps, the 4 Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path." Despite her claims of being a "teacher," I haven't been able to verify that she has any credentials from anywhere to teach whatsoever. 

Some of her bilge has already been published on thefix.com as so-called "guided meditations;" and basically her schtick is basically pulling out some aspect of Buddhism; and some aspect of 12 Step religions, and making an absurd claim that there's correspondence between these two different aspects of two different religions.   Now maybe in some varieties of Buddhism guided meditations have a place; but in the Zen school, it's almost entirely unheard of in my experience, at least, in terms of more authentic teaching, and Brad Warner explains why.   Although I've cheerfully upbraided Ven. Warner on some of his political meanderings and his super reliance on Dōgen, his commitment to authentic practice seems very strong.   I'll still continue cheerfully upbraiding though when the situation seems to warrant it. 

I've debunked her stuff chapter and verse elsewhere, but suffice to say here, anyone who's serious about Buddhist practice and has been in contact with 12 Step spiritual religious practices will eventually realize:

• We Buddhists don't really have a "higher power."
• We don't really have "character defects;" in fact the opposite is more true.
• There's no "we" who are "powerless."
• Buddhism can't really be warped into a 12 Step religious framework.

I could go on, but as I wrote elsewhere, maybe her cultural appropriation of Buddhism is good in the way that maybe Frederick Lenz's cultural appropriation might have been good in that it will spur people on to look for the real thing.  I hope so, because there is so much misinformation about Buddhism in 12 Step circles, and a growing realization that even Refuge Recovery is tainted with 12 Step - inherited Christian moralism and dualism.

Also though the confluence of this 12 Step distortion of Buddhism happened, it's not the only place where religious principles alien to Buddhism rub elbows with Buddhism.  I'm not going to delve into whether Roman Catholic priests should study or teach Zen - although I wouldn't be a student of such a teacher, preferring the original flavor to the Western appropriation.  But I would like to go back to the issue of Adam Tebbe, which I think hasn't gotten nearly the shrift it merited. 

Adam Tebbe was for a few years heavily associated with a kind of American Sōtō Zen Buddhism qua Tricycle qua TMZ.  There were, for a while a few teachers with whom he was associated, and indeed they blogged on his site.  Jundo Cohen gives him credit for propagating information about predatory teachers, although I think what Tebbe was really doing was becoming absorbed in the scandal, that is scandal blogging, as opposed to ferreting out new information, i.e., journalism.  I think it's sad that Tebbe was more or less unconciously aided and abetted by a couple of teachers here and there who I think didn't see a couple of warning signs which were more or less evident to anyone who questioned why the main focus of a site purporting to be an encyclopedic resource for "Zen" was so focused on what to me was scandal blogging.  Adam Tebbe was - probably still is - a hurting person, and somewhere along the way,  if his "testimony" is accurate - he seems to have had a psychotic break, or at least the language he's using to describe his experience is not inconsistent with having such a break.

How do we respond to such a person?  Right now the response of most of the on-line Buddhist media and what's left of the Buddhist blogosphere has been mostly silence.  When the subject has come up, the response has tended toward "I hope he finds peace in his path," and though I've said this too, I would also add that I'd wish he'd stop denigrating Buddhism in his pushing of Christianity, especially since it comes across with a certain "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life" quality to it.  I do think though it's incumbent on the Buddhist blogosphere - and especially those teachers that were formerly close to Tebbe - to make some kind of statement, to pay some attention to the fact that this happened, as I titled an earlier blog post on this subject.

Two or three years ago I was having a beer with my teacher (yes, this happens), and the subject of Eido Shimano came up.  We both agreed that from our standpoints it was impossible to explain Shimano's predatory behavior; my teacher opined that Shimano must have been really mentally troubled.

So it is - and ironically so - with Tebbe.  I can't explain or know what he went through, the pain and troubles he's had that would have related to a psychotic break.   I can't explain why at this stage of his life, he has to deprecate the Dharma, but I will certainly remonstrate against that. 

But one thing I have learned deeper since the time I've spoken with my teacher.  We're not kidding around at all, it's not just a pep talk, to say that we're inherently  Buddhas, inherently capable of transcending suffering.   I don't know why some folks suffer profoundly in ways I can't understand, but I can attest that suffering can be transcended, and you don't need another religious or "spiritual" path to do that.  And this fact that we are inherently Buddhas has profound implications about how other religions are in relation to Buddhism.  It's not something to be erased, papered over, swept under the rug or otherwise ignored.

Guess where I'm going? Plus: re: Brad Warner, like everyone else, like me, caveat emptor

It's not to Nevada, but rather the other country to which Paul Krugman makes an economic comparison here.  So I'm not likely to get much into this blog until Saturday.

There are many things I'd like to do in the week ahead, but there are many things I have to do. Hopefully those things that have to be done I will do, and those that I want to do, for which I have time, will be helpful.

For whatever reason - maybe because it's in response to an equally jumbled post from Brad Warner I'm adding the following to this post:

I wish I could have an in-depth response to Brad Warner's post here, as well as his post on depression here. However, to summarize, I was taken aback by both of them. In the first blog post about AA, if you've read the Stinkin' Thinkin blog, well, enough said, I hope. But in case it isn't enough, let me point out that Zen practice requires about as much faith, I'd say, as getting in the pool to swim when one is completely out of practice, or for that matter, taking up 書道 when one's writing has been decried as chicken scratch^*. Twelve step groups do not function that way.  Zen wasn't predicated or founded on quack science.  Zen Buddhist tradition and practice does not have what can in any way be called an undercurrent of narcissism. And the founder of AA's "root heritage" predecessor teacher wasn't any better. 

In the second case, I'm taken aback because Warner can't bring himself to say simple words here: if you are deeply troubled by depression, get help.  In fact, if you have a substance abuse issue get help.  Just like with anything else caveat emptor.

___________
* Note that one might be out of practice to the point where one has forgotten they can do basic swimming activity, as was my case.  Furthermore, those with bad writing have been said - I forgot where - to have more talent at  書道  than those who have very very neat penmanship.  That says something.    I think what it says is that one should not be nailed to the mast of one's preconceptions.  So do your own homework about everything, including what's written in this post.

And a bit of back...and forth to come?...with 12 Step Buddhists

Darren Littlejohn illustrates the problem with mixing and matching Buddhist ideas (not necessarily the practices) with other ideologies, in this case, 12 Step ideology...

From a Buddhist perspective, emotions are considered poison and need to be restrained or transcended fully to achieve enlightenment. Ask any monk or nun about their vows and they'll tell you - getting carried away emotionally is a no-no. In 12-Step practice, emotions are based on instincts gone wild and need to be leveled off to maintain sobriety (clean-time). 

 My comments:

1. From a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, emotions are an aspect of the 5 aggregates, a manifestation of Mind, and fundamentally empty.   They are not poisons, and "getting carried away emotionally" isn't the problem with the emotion it's a problem with the being stuck in dukkha doing the emoting.  In Buddhism, and in Zen, we try to act in accordance and in harmony, and this harmony means recognizing responsibility.
2. Denial and suppression of emotions is a sure-fire recipe for some bad karma; this has been part of the human story since at least the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese, the ancient Indians, and even the Buddhists. Feelings that are harmful - "evil, unskillful, thoughts" exist, have existed and will continue to exist; they are no different from an itchy nose in their form and substance and yield to similar techniques.
3. Simply abstaining from intoxicants won't do jack for you, in the Buddhist view.  Also in the Buddhist view, it affords you no bragging rights.  There's a whole lot more to it, and, well, it just ain't captured in the holy doctrines of Bill Wilson. 

Darren Littlejohn Replies, and my Rejoinder

Darren Littlejohn replied to my earlier post here with a comment here:

The act of judging judgment is in itself judgment - even if hiding behind a label of compassion. Some may disagree with the choice of words or interpretation of the Dharma. That's OK. No one has to believe a word of it. We all have issues. It's Samsara. How's that for an issue?

"Buyer Beware" would fit if someone were selling the ideas. I share freely what's worked for me. Sure you can argue that we're selling books. But they don't print themselves. Perhaps you'll read the book before being so non-judging and compassionate. But if you hate the 12 Steps please don't use them. They too are free and for people who want them, not people who need them. The "guided meditation" podcasts are also free.. Please don't listen if you don't like them. Thousands of people do like them and continue to ask for more.

Just in case my reply doesn't get past the Huffington Post moderator (been known to happen when folks have been highly critical of Deepak Chopra and other folks; it's nothing on Mr. Littlejohn) here's my reply (with a couple of typos fixed):

Darren:

To each their own, of course. I'm just reporting what I see. Of course, your book aside, let's be honest here: you anticipate, based on your belief in 12 Step programs, that indeed there is a quid pro quo for "sharing freely" what's "worked for you" because the 12 Steps imply precisely that - "Spiritual Awakening."

BTW, I don't "hate" the 12 Steps; that's kind of odd, if you think about it; kind of like a "War on Drugs." I also don't "hate" the use of mummies for medicinal purposes, supply side economics, or Calvinism.

As far as guided meditations are concerned, they likely have their place in therapeutic settings, but I stand by my words, and you shouldn't take offense. Ever hear of Roy Masters?

So, I really do mean it, please be at peace, but, as with any proselytizers, please don't be shocked if people actually consider what you say.

I think your practice of Buddhism is right for you, and might be right for other people, but if you take umbrage at people scrutinizing your words, how open minded is that?

I really do wish him peace and, uh, serenity.

Perhaps, though, he doesn't like the "Spiritual Hucksterism" label on that post and this one. However, I must confess, I do find 12 Step groups in that category, simply because they make the fundamental mistake of creationists and Scientologists: as part of their dogma, they make claims that are testable via the scientific method, and when such claims are tested, they are found to be false, and the adherents persist in upholding the false claims. [On Edit]: However, on further reflection it does seem that there are other aspects that fit the bill:

• They tend to encourage thinking resistant to questioning and criticism; I think the proof is given in this post.
• They tend to use fear ... as in "You'll die if you don't continue to be in a 12 Step progam." Needless to say, this particular claim is not borne out in the data.
• And, in particular, they don't seem to like caveat emptor - a healthy skepticism when it comes to their religious practices and beliefs.

Sorry 'bout that. But the world of phenomena is not going to not behave as the world of phenomena simply because you wish that your spiritual path were true.

But otherwise I think his response speaks for itself.

If one finds comfort and help in a 12 Step program, good for them, just as if one finds contact with god in a church or in a coven, good for them. But if we can't have a policy of "Let's talk about everything" (a calligraphy in the Zendo I attend) then something's not quite right.

Compassion

I think Darren Littlejohn has issues, and wouldn't rely on him for any kind of accurate representation of the Dharma, and think there are serious concerns with what he's saying and how he's saying it, (caveat emptor especially when it comes to "guided meditations") but I cannot but have empathy for him as well: clearly he's a guy who started from a point where he knew not for the life of him what he was doing, and tried to make sense of it all as best he could.

If AA is right and pain is the touchstone of all spiritual growth then the Buddha was right when he pointed out that all actions in samsara (endless cycle of of rebirth) lead to suffering.

I think it's the other way around. Some discredited stockbroker, as a result of contact with a group founded by a closeted evangelist, mixed in with some strong hallucinogens, comes upon the realization that there is suffering in life (but not that this is a core principle of the noble truth of emptiness).

We can meditate until our pursed lips are purple with exertion to transcend the pain of being or we can learn to be, being-as the ache inside our souls pulses on.

There are many ways in Buddhism of dealing with thoughts and sensations of pain and suffering, but (maybe it's Littlejohn's bad phrasing?) in at least some of these ways, being the pain is transcending the pain.

Another view might be that Awakened Ones have given us the teachings, methods and advice for how we can come to our own place of self-love and stop hurting ourselves and others. They're different beings than us but share the same Awake nature. Please don't confuse this with the infantile notion that we're all one being. (That thinking is a kind of sickness in my view.)

Well, I think Mr. Littlejohn might want to read more of the Buddhist canon before he starts trying to crow-bar 12 Step theology into Buddhism or vice versa. To call us separate beings is as "infantile" a notion as it is of calling us "one being."

The way I'm talking about enlightenment here is more analogous to all of the infinite molecules, elements and matter and consciousnesses that make up everything sharing the same basic space. This cup and that cup are two different cups in that yours was made then and of different colored material and mine another time and this color but the same in that they're not as separate or independently arising as they appear. Yet yours holds wine and mine sparkling cider. Please don't mix them up!

Please don't think they're not the same. Please don't think that enlightenment depends on wine and sparkling cider being the same or different, or neither. If it is time not to drink just don't drink.

Everything has its place and disharmony ensues when things are not in their place, to be sure.

We don't need religious fusion so much as we need people present and engaged at this very moment, without ego.

May peace and harmony prevail within Darren Littlejohn.

So you think you know heaven and hell...

Hakuin in one of his writings mentions the existence of heaven and hell, and asserts their reality. His reasons are not quite logical, and with the writings, at least as translated, there's more than a bit of defensiveness.

What to do with that?

Accept him at his word?

I do tend to subscribe to the ideas, as expounded by other Buddhists, that heaven and hell are what you make your life here and now. To be fair to Hakuin, he could be read that way, but that could just as well be a clever way around some statements that are hard to defend. It could be historical revisionism.

Generally, I tend to take a nontheist view of things; it is not important to the work of transcending suffering, curing the 3 poisons and so forth to speculate deeply about metaphysics. This comports with Buddhist viewpoints going back millenia, going back to the Buddha himself, who when asked about such things is said to have responded with a noble silence.

Hakuin couldn't have been totally ignorant of this, he was very learned to say the least, but his writing though could as well be informed by the Lotus Sutra, in particular where doctrines of upaya are presented. Quan-Yin/Kannon/Avolkitesvara will assume any form needed to accomplish compassion, if compassion is sought. Hakuin understood that there was a "popular" Buddhism that lay people followed because they could not afford the learning and leisure to practice zazen of the clerical class.

Hakuin was not above criticizing some of the abuses and decadence he saw in Buddhism of his time and place however.

I guess the difference is that between "thought leaders" - people who decide where to take culture by their unique position and leadership, and the masses, who don't have the time and leisure to consider deeply the spiritual, religious, political, psychological and otherwise "technical" (medical, scientific, legal...) aspects of the life they must live now.

So I want to make myself a bit clearer: I have nothing against any individual who decides to practice a 12 Step program, for whatever reason, if they think they need it. I even have nothing against those who, for want of a better solution, recommend a solution to a problem known to be suboptimal. But for those who are peddling known suboptimal solutions, based on snake-oil as some kind of universal optimum I modestly dissent, to use the words of the Scottish Calvinists in response to the Jacobites. When adherents of a sect claim some kind of metaphysical reality being breached uniquely to that sect, I have to respond: what is my experience, chopped liver? And when someone claims that their sect and its supporting structures has science behind hit, when there is none, I am compelled morally, I am acting ex cathedra, so to speak, from my vows to bring up what science is, why there is no science in the organization. And if there's a dodgy history behind the sect I will have to mention it. There's dodgy history in my sect, and I bring it up, should hucksters get a pass because they claim they "help people?"

The answer to my questions above, by the way, is to respectfully disagree with Hakuin's positions on heaven and hell, at least insofar as a noble silence on such subjects is disagreement.