you did ask
there is a whole section on this one topic if I remember correctlyIf you are a member, what do you have to say about the FWBO cult files that Chris posted above?
there is a whole section on this one topic if I remember correctlyIf you are a member, what do you have to say about the FWBO cult files that Chris posted above?
Hi Manapa.Manapa wrote:
I went to the group while I was in Scotland.
I never understood why the use of an alias would bother them?
Hi Gabegabrielbranbury wrote:Hi Jack,BlackBird wrote:I have to ask, and my apologies if I appear blunt, but how many of our members here are members of the Tiratna Buddhist order, formerly Friends of the Western Buddhist order?
If you are a member, what do you have to say about the FWBO cult files that Chris posted above?
metta
Jack
[snip]
While this material might use a certain amount of facts there are certainly many blatant falsities and its author chooses to remain anonymous.
In other words it is blatant propaganda.
Hi Jack,BlackBird wrote: Hi Gabe
Thank you for your response. I wonder if you have seen this article. If not, it's well worth a read (please don't be put off by the title).
metta
Jack
Then while the editorial is meant to be about the fwbo files and the response it goes on to simply express the conclusions of the writer without really commenting further on the topic. I think that if someone wants to express their opinions about Sangharakshita and the Order he founded, it harms their credibility to bring the fwbo files into it at all. There are well grounded reasons for a critical perspective of both, especially if one is a relatively conservative Buddhist.Of course they draw different conclusions from their contrasting presentations and the response succeeds in showing through textual quotes that Sangharakshita has in places been misinterpreted.
I've read the article before and it makes some very important points, I feel, particularly relating to institutional structure in Buddhist organisations.gabrielbranbury wrote:Hi Jack,BlackBird wrote: Hi Gabe
Thank you for your response. I wonder if you have seen this article. If not, it's well worth a read (please don't be put off by the title).
metta
Jack
Thanks for the article. Its Highly editorial but balanced in the sense that it does not seem to step beyond the scope of opinion. While I disagree I can empathize with the point of view of the author. However it is a shame that his position is given within the context of commenting on the fwbo files and the response. Even the author states that....
Then while the editorial is meant to be about the fwbo files and the response it goes on to simply express the conclusions of the writer without really commenting further on the topic. I think that if someone wants to express their opinions about Sangharakshita and the Order he founded, it harms their credibility to bring the fwbo files into it at all. There are well grounded reasons for a critical perspective of both, especially if one is a relatively conservative Buddhist.Of course they draw different conclusions from their contrasting presentations and the response succeeds in showing through textual quotes that Sangharakshita has in places been misinterpreted.
By the way I am happy to hear about your decision to go forth. May your heart find unshakable happiness.
Gabe
To state that you find an issue boring, whilst informing us of your feelings on the matter, hardly constitutes an argument. As an ex member of the WBO I can tell you that the idea of a name change happened around the same time as the Guardian article came out. It should also be pointed out that Sangharaksitas followers in India where never known as the WBO/FWBO but as the Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayaka Gana. So I am surprised that the Indian wing of the order has called for this name change. Of course, it makes sense from it global position but just because this can be shown as a valid reason, it does not mean that other reasons are also not valid. In effect the Indian wing of the movement if anything found the Guardian scandal even more embarrassing not to say humiliating. Whilst the issue in the UK was the charges of homosexual abuse, the issue in India was that of homosexuality itself which at that time (maybe even now) was illegal. So the reasons for the Indian wing of the movement calling for a name change may be just as much to do with the bad press as to do with a recognition of the international aspect of this Buddhist Order.jayarava wrote:............snip......
I now find the whole criticism thing dead boring. Yawn...
The reason for changing the name is that "western" no longer applies - fully a quarter of our Order are Indians! Many others do not identify with the label "western". snip............).
To some extent I think that it is.cooran wrote:Would the name change be an attempt to move away from the scandals of the past?
I don't know a great deal about Triratana but I'd have thought creating an imitation ordination order for the west was in fact unecessaririly mimicking asian cultures.Sanghamitta wrote:The T.B.O and W.B.O are among only a handful of Buddhist communities that have anything to say to modern society that is not mired in scholasticism and/or an adoption of some kind of mimicking of one or another ethnic group.
Sangharakshita's greatest contribution perhaps, is the realisation that westerners have to fulfill their kammic inheritance as westerners rather than become pretend Asians
And that attempting to bypass one's cultural inheritances is a huge block to the kind of mental good health that is a necessary prerequisite to actualising Dhamma.
Goofaholix wrote:Either way it's good to see that members believe in what they are doing and that the organisation doesn't stand or fall on the failings of it's founder.
I concur.Sanghamitta wrote:I do think though with all its problematic past that a proportion of its members are facing those problems courageously and deserve our support.