User talk:Rupa zero/archive

A bit late, but...

Welcome!

Hello, Rupa zero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Figma 14:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Encyclopedic Tone

Actually, now that you mention it, I just looked over the article again and it looks fine. I don't know why I added that. I was up late last night, I must've been tired. It looks formal enough as it stands, sorry about the mistake. I'll take off the tone template. Asarelah 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FWBO

The talk page of article is about editorial policy. So I'm writing this in your page instead. It is hard to accept "That was then, This is now" or "That is not same as my personal experience which is this" line of defence I hear from the current FWBO members when we don't clearly know what is "that" and what is "this". The issue won't die until FWBO officially and publicly acknowledge what took place. Writing of individual members is not an official stance of the organisation. There appear to be some senior members of WBO who did pretty much the same thing as S and that must be the reason FWBO is reluctant to come clean about it. Then there were those who are still suffering damage caused by FWBO. Vapour

I appreciate that, and to some extent I agree. But from what I gather, there was a widespread attitude in the 70s that homosexual relationships are like gold-dust or something, so many order members were having sex with men in the movement. That would be why senior order members 'did the same thing as S did;' I'm not aware of any secrecy surrounding that. As for an official renunciation, the problem is that the FWBO isn't a monolithic organisation. It is merely a collection of friendships between individuals who all go for refuge in the vehicle of a similar expression of the dharma. So it's sort of paradoxical to have a central authority express regret. There isn't really a central authority. Perhaps the preceptor's council could say something, but then, PR isn't in their job description. I understand why the lack of an official apology is disturbing, but I don't think the FWBO has to be permanently branded as something malicious until such an apology is released. I think it's more important that it's made easier for people to understand what the FWBO actually is. Rupa zero 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moral issue isn't about homosexuality but sexual exploitation and gratification. Middle aged men tricking young men to have sex on the pretense of spirituality is bad and sad. More genuine the person's spiritual aspiration, bigger the damage for being used. Making someone to "cross" his sexuality further add to the damage. As I understand it, being a part of F/WBO is now defined by the mutual recognition of ordination. Obviously, public will see such mutual recognition as an act of condoning the past abuses by the FWBO collective. Vapour

You're right, it was completely wrong. I didn't mean to make it sound as though it was homosexuality itself that was being targeted as the sin of the fwbo. It is, of course, the issue of the spiritual glorification of homosexuality. I personally don't think there was a concerted attempt to trick anyone into sex. But even without that intention behind it, there was so much wrong in what was being said by some about heterosexuality.

I've never heard anyone say that the basis of the wbo is mutual recognition of one's ordination. The basis is mutual recognition of one's going for refuge. Since we do not mutually recognise each other's ordination, but rather each other's going for refuge, it means that we do not as a collective condone each other's past actions. Questioning someone on their ethical conduct is approached from the basis of, 'Given that you're going for refuge, why are you behaving in this way?' People have to either have a sound explanation, a sound apology, or admit that they are in fact not going for refuge - at which point, they should leave.

Given this, the individuals involved are only capable of staying in the fwbo because they feel great remorse for their actions. If they felt justified they would have had to say so. It's not so much that an Order Member's peers can oust him because they feel his ordination is no longer valid given his past actions.

Before I end this lengthy message I must add that I'm only in preparation for ordination and therefore anything I say might be inaccurate. There's a fair number of OMs on wikipedia you could double check things with if you're interested. Rupa zero 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my friend's personal take on Buddhism (which was stated in an email discussion which was not related to FWBO). "Buddhism means different things to different people, for some its a way to create a pure land or better world, for some its an convenient ethical shell over whatever they want to do or believe, thats why I take exception to the phrase "as a buddhist i believe that ...."." A Theravada monk I'm acquainted with once stated that "if you practice genuine dhamma, there is no need for one to claim that one is a Buddhist."

People were being hurt. If you hurt someone while driving, your driving license will be revoked. Otherwise, the whole system would be in disrepute. Anyway, here is something I found.

"Ordination was the only point at which standards could really be asserted, and the Order’s existence depended on its members’ mutual acceptance of one another’s ordinations. As Subhuti put it, `ordination is the only “sacrament” within the FWBO’s system.’ As we understood it, ordination centred on the preceptor’s `witnessing’ that the candidate was going for Refuge to the Three Jewels; and this witnessing required considerable depth of Dharma practice and engagement with the WBO sangha."[1]

So why S and any other senior ordained members, who caused so much personal damage with their sexual exploit, still part of F/WBO? Of course many see this as a tacit endorsement of their misdeed by FWBO collective. As of homosexual glorification, what is so different from those Christian therapist who offer so called "cure" for homosexuality? Moreover, if heterosexual sex with these therapist was a part of this so-called cure, would you believe the claim that there was no concerted attempt to trick anyone into sex for sexual gratification? Vapour

P.S. Sorry. I came off as bit judgmental. Vapour

Like I said, the FWBO is based on a network of friendships between people witnessing each other's going for refuge. You can't witness someone's going for refuge based on set rules - 'if you were going for refuge you would do x' - you can only do it based on communication. If your friend does something wrong, you rebuke them, and you listen to their confession, and you hear their intention to change. You don't shut them out - not unless you're a clique. You reject their actions but not them, because you know that they are growing spiritual beings. This is what's happened in the fwbo. People have expressed remorse, and thus things have changed, and I really hope that one day a medium and an agent will be found for a public apology.

I of course would never dream of trying to condone what they were saying and doing. Your parallel with those kind of Christian homophobics is very appropriate and probably accurately describes what was happening. But I can't make the assumption that people were doing it for sexual gratification. I just don't have enough information. I make the decision not to assume in the same way that I make no assumptions about George Bush's intentions in foreign policy. Maybe it's about oil, maybe it's about American supremacy, maybe it's a genuine belief in democracy - I don't know, and I think it's bad for my karma to assume the worst and bad for my intellect to assume the best.

Not that we're softies in the fwbo. It's just that we deal with things in a more personal way than most institutions, such as the Drivers' Licensing Authority. It's a luxury really that we are so friendly and organic in our approach. It means that my ordination training is not about jumping through hoops, but about the reality behind my spiritual development.

You don't come across as judgemental. You come off as hurt. I guess if I think about it, yes, you are being judgemental - you make it sound as though the whole of Sangharakshita's teaching and his entire subsequent spiritual life are soiled by the events of a few years. I disagree with that judgement, but I understand why you reached it, and I don't mind that you're so passionate about it. Also, about the religious cover for moralistic views - Sangharakshita was always clear which things came from the Buddhist tradition and which came from him. And as you know, the whole shebang is up to one's personal discretion and experience, as the Buddha advised. Rupa zero 22:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was sidetracked. It is obviously futile to change someone's opinion over text communication. On the other hand, I can certainly explain why FWBO get bad rep. Just as you say FWBO is a mere collection of friends, public is a mere collection of average Joe and Jane, whose response would be very predictable and judgmental when a Christian therapist have heterosexual sex with homosexual patient(s). It doesn't really make any difference if it is matter of can't or won't apologise. Anyway, good luck with your practice. Vapour

I'm sorry you feel that this discussion has been futile. I hope we have a productive time editing the article until it meets both our needs. I deal a lot with Buddhists from other traditions in my university Buddhist Society and so far have had only one negative experience with people's opinion of the fwbo. Most of the bad responses I get are on the internet. From the material on the internet it's natural for average joe to draw a negative conclusion. From the experiences available in actual western buddhist circles it's quite a different matter, I guess. I hope our discussion has given you a clearer idea of my feeling on the matter, and I'm sorry that you want to leave it be. I certainly have learned a lot about your outlook and feel much more comfortable working with you in future on this article. Good luck with your practice too - sabbe satta sukhi hontu ^-^ Rupa zero 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That probably to do with the fact that you are a FWBO and people are being polite. If you are practicing Buddhist in U.K. it is hard not to notice many of the scandals which came out from FWBO or not to notice local (FWBO) Buddhist Centre. I know someone in Cambridge Buddhist society and they know the most of "what about" of the scandals. Most people nowaday have connection to the internet.

Just about three weeks ago, I attended Zen dojo and someone relatively new to the whole Buddhism mentioned about local (FWBO) Manchester Buddhist Centre. The Manchester Buddhist Centre is having serious financial problem. You can read about it from their newsletter avialable from their website. It was mentioned that such difficulty is not suprising given "that sex thing". I have also suggested that Manchester is rather unique in that there are pretty much every major buddhist groups, all four Tibetan schools and NKT, Chinese, Japanese, Korean Zen, two Thai, Burmese and Sri Lankan Theravada as well as Samatha Trust and many others around the Greater Manchester. Despite the fact that FWBO class primary rely on volunteer labour, FWBO's fees (suggested donation) for meditation class is the highest among the whole Buddhist groups. Anyway, hang around in other Buddhist groups and you will eventually come across people who used to belong to FWBO, whom you can find out about what FWBO used to do or say. Vapour

I hope you don't think I'm ignorant of what used to happen in the FWBO. I hear enough about what used to be done and said from current members. There's no secrecy - it comes up in discussion fairly regularly. A lot of buddhist centres are running at a financial deficit at the moment, but no-one's particularly panicked about it as far as I can tell - and one of my closest friends runs a buddhist centre! It's not about the money, and it's not about having more members than anyone else. Manchester Buddhist Centre's suggested donations are slightly higher than other fwbo centres, as far as I remember. I'm guessing it's because of the premises they have.

I think I understand a little more clearly now your reasons for trying to end the discussion. I think we're here with divisive goals. I want to have an open conversation about the FWBO so that you understand my position a little better - so that you understand how I practise and why I practise that way, so that we can relate to each other on a positive basis when editing this article. You seem to want to 'change [my] opinion.' Maybe on some level I'm deluded enough to want to change your opinion too. But in all honesty, you can have any opinion you want about the fwbo past and present. I would just like you to respect that my positive experience is genuine, and I would like you to consider me a fellow buddhist. I am afraid that you might consider me the victim of a charlatan, and that's very painful for me.

I've thought about trying out another buddhist school. But I read relevant texts by their teachers and I just didn't feel like their teaching was for me. I realised that if I did go to another group, it wouldn't be because I wanted to find out more about them, and it wouldn't be because I was disenchanted with the fwbo model. It would be because I want to feel like my practice is legitimate in the eyes of other buddhists. I don't think that's a good enough reason. Maybe it's a stupid thing to want anyway. It's an easily identifiable want on the scale of the eight worldly winds, so I shouldn't be surprised that time and again I am disappointed. So maybe I should give up on that altogether. Maybe it's foolish for me to want you to recognise that I am a practising buddhist.

By the way, I'm going to write a letter to the preceptor's college about a public apology. On reflection, I think that you're right. Even if there is no real central authority, the need for an apology is pertinent enough for the college to need to step up and take this one on the chin. So I guess you did change my opinion. Rupa zero 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My reference about futility of trying to change someone's opinion over internet discussion cover both you and me. If you remember, you were saying that "I want people to recognise my spiritual practice and that of my peers for what it really is". I gave an analogy of a Christian therapist having sex with his patient under the guise of cure for homosexuality. You said you don't think the sexual gratification was a part of motive. I and probably the public at large would think otherwise. Anyway, I have an opinion that it is futile to dispute what is or isn't legitimate or authentic Buddhism. If you find what you do beneficial for you, then that should be a validation enough for you. Vapour

Oh, good luck with your letter. It is my understanding that this has already been discussed. I remember reading that the FWBO website once described sex-mitra thing as a "mistake". Vapour

FWBo

Thank for your remark. I will read the article in the next days, however you can remove the neutrality template if you feel it is appropriate. Many Regards, --Kt66 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FWBO

Good job. You seem to have done a lot of work while I was away. Vapour —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Japanese Alliance

I made some suggestions for additions on the talk page of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance article.

Interested to read your thoughts and contributions. As is it's the best history article I've read on Wikipedia, which it seems is thanks to you. 58.173.49.252 (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Cambridge meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 1. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sangharakshita

Hi. I will nominate the sections of Sangharakshita article which has no third party source. I believe I gave you enough time. You hardly added any third party source. I do not believe that one could use your organisation as sources. It amount to self promotion. Vapour (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)