Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan

Subject: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/15/2011, 7:19 pm

[Admin note: Because we had another update, this thread was split from posts in Howard's thread "Could the OBC Connect use some balance?" under the category "Suggestions for the OBC". It lists Mokuan as the "author" because her post was the first in sequence to be moved; this is a function of the forum software.]

Mokuan wrote:: I just looked at Haryo's personal website -- I guess that's what it is -- and tomorrow, Jan 15, he says he'll be addressing the local lay community.
I think this is out of the ordinary for him, and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with this forum. If it were only Shasta concerns, I would think those would more be probably addressed by Meian as the communities, and how they are run, are independent.
So in anticipation that the forum may be discussed, here's my note to RM Haryo:

Dear RM Haryo,

If there are any questions by the congregation members tomorrow about this forum, would you please acknowledge that there may be some credence to what's being said here and not just shrug off this forum and its members as disgruntled, unenlightened, precepts-breaking-whatevers.
Please remember, RM Haryo, we were all once part of the OBC. And for however long or short, we did love and care for the community and RMJK.

Yours sincerely,
mokuan

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/15/2011, 7:47 pm

This is the info he posted on this site some months ago, and he did mention that people could use it to contact him.

http://haryo.posterous.com/

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

mokuan wrote:: I just looked at Haryo's personal website -- I guess that's what it is -- and tomorrow, Jan 15, he says he'll be addressing the local lay community.
I think this is out of the ordinary for him, and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with this forum. If it were only Shasta concerns, I would think those would more be probably addressed by Meian as the communities, and how they are run, are independent. ...

I received the email below, in regard to that meeting. Sorry for the strange fonts, it came to me that way and I did not try to fix it.

[P.S. Howard, I will move this post to a new thread if you want me to -- I don't want to derail your topic. Your call.]

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, Berthold Olson wrote:

From: Berthold Olson
Subject: Re: Sangha communications
To: [deleted]
Cc: [deleted]
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 2:31 PM

On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:050 AM, [deleted] wrote:

This is an attempt at a synopsis of last Sunday’s Lay Sangha meeting with Rev. Berthold on the topic of the newly formed group, the Order's Interim Board, and a reminder that this Sunday 1/16/11 the Lay Sangha will meet with Rev. Master Haryo at 10:30 at Cleavers’.

We discussed what is the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives and some things that came out of the Order's conclave last September at Shasta Abbey. One was that those who attended the conclave agreed to form a short to medium term group of monks and lay ministers from North America and Europe, the interim board, (see below for who is on it) to help the head of the Order, Rev. Master Haryo, and the rest of the Order to communicate more effectively and work on issues and ideas. The public statement about this board's creation is on the opening page of interim board's website, obcinterimboard.org. Another topic was how the lay trainees who are not lay ministers might be more included in the Order, and a beginning dialog about this is on a recently created website, brightmoon.org. The current state of the Lay Ministers were discussed and no doubt will be again at the meeting on the 16^th.

The local congregation was also encouraged to be forthcoming in offering feedback and concerns and even positive things to both Shasta Abbey at this new email address--comments2shastaabbey@gmail.com (see this page- http://www.shastaabbey.org/
-towards the bottom for the announcement about this) and the Order itself through the interim board at secretary@obcinterimboard.org.

That Board has begun with a few things, including:

· becoming a functioning working group itself, and learning how to work together over such large distances
· inviting suggestions and concerns about our Order to be considered and creating working groups of monks and lay ministers to work on things that need addressing
· encouraging more participation from monks and the laity in Order matters and setting up ways for that to happen
· considering a possible inquiry into what happened at Shasta Abbey in regards to its former Abbot
· coordinating a working group to begin the process of changing the Order's website (obcon.org)
· preparing for this year's OBC conclave

There are a variety of monastic and lay people on the interim board (see below), as well as the interim board website that you could contact for more information, suggestions or complaints. In my mind, the sheer volume of what is to be done does not yet lend itself to how to choose the best one. Those who need that right away really ought to come to meetings and be part of the process. Those who don’t can wait patiently for clarification.

In the meantime, Rev. Berthold reminds those who don’t want to participate that to simply meditate and do your practice is just fine! The Great Matter before us, the reason we train, will not be changed by all this.

In gassho,
[deleted]

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/15/2011, 9:17 pm

Thanks Lise for posting that. The two lines in greek letters read:
becoming a functioning working group itself, and learning how to work together over such large distances
becoming a functioning working group itself, and learning how to work together over such large distances
preparing for this year's OBC conclave
preparing for this year's OBC conclave

mind you its all greek to me.

A Gertrude Stein poem ends with the classic line:
Let me recite what history teaches. History teaches.

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

Mark, thanks for that, I'm one of the technically-challenged and don't notice these things generally.

Random thought about the Interim Board's most recent message. I scoured it for substantive content, but it seemed to me they were talking about . . . how to talk about . . . more talking . . .

I would like to be more supportive of their efforts however, so I'm off to do a guided meditation on that for a bit, and will be back later.

L.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Mark is it modern or ancient Greek?

I find it a bit peculiar to be honest why write in Greek? Is it to make it sound more important, more authoritive, it seems like another round of or another layer of camaflage.

I will steal your joke it remains all greek to me too

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

[The message below appears as I received it. I didn't try to fix font sizes or spacing issues, which might be caused by emails traveling between computers (?) -- Lise]

Quote :

From: [deleted]
To: [deleted]
Cc: Rev. Master Haryo Young
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: Rev. Master Haryo Meeting Notes

there are a couple of things I'd like to correct

Dear Lay Sangha,

January 16, Rev Master Haryo met with the Lay Sangha.

Much of the meeting was in followup of the previous one:

The
Interim Board is not a disciplinary group, but is considering hiring
further inquiry into what happened at Shasta Abbey in regards to its
former Abbot. See last email for their many other functions, as well as
reference sites & email addresses for a variety of suggestions,
information and complaints. The working groups that they have planned
thus far – Lay Disciples and Lay Sangha – may be followed by other ones.

The
inadvertent bullet-points-in-Greek from the last synopsis say that the
Interim Board members are still learning how to communicate with each
other over large distances, and are preparing for this year’s Conclave
at Throssel Hole.

The
OBC has disciplinary rules in place and Rev. Master Haryo has an OBC
Advisory Board to help him with that. The OBC is also considering
Committees focused on Ethics and Discipline. He must also weigh the
spiritual impact on all concerned.

The Sangha expressed
willingness to help him, the OBC, and the Abbey to meet their needs.
Rev. Haryo gave examples of help-needed and hard-to-ask for, like
redesigning the OBC website, maintaining the Hotei garden,
proofreading. Several possible actions were put forth, as the group
brainstormed how to find out where help is needed, what resources we
have and how to keep track of them over time: maybe create a "skills
bank" or data bank of Lay talents available to monastic community. Jade
will make inquiries involving the Lay Sangha Excel data base and report
back.

Why
were lay ministers created? RM Haryo reviewed their history, how they
are chosen and recent evolution locally and throughout the Order.
Currently, each priory defines lay minister functions for itself,
including meditation instruction, assist or perform ceremonies, be
examples of training, etc. These are listed in OBC Rules & Regs in
Guest House library. Liability insurance is required because they teach
meditation and represent the Order. The brown Kesa is no longer given to
lay ministers, and was for recognition of service beyond the call of
duty.

How are new people welcomed to Order and Abbey? How are
their questions answered? How do they know resources available to them?
Discussion followed with various ideas. One observation is that it is up
to each of us to take the responsibility to ask our own questions, to
do our own training and look around to see what is good
to do.

The mundane – we’ll propose changing the new Abbey phone
outgoing message to allow caller opportunity to leave message, or access
to live person, before providing extension numbers. comments2shastaabbey@gmail.com is indeed a valid email address for nonmonastics to use for Abbey matters.

A
pearl for those who tend toward guilt at not doing more now: when we
turn toward training to find what is within, it does not mean that we
turn our back on all the other things in the world that are good to do.
It’s what we have chosen to do.

Rev. Master Haryo will be happy to meet again when asked.

In gassho,

Gene

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/18/2011, 11:33 am

Oh goodness gracious, what silly creatures we've been! We've been discussing institutional trauma when we should have been focusing our energies on hints for garden maintenance, tips for proofreading, and ideas on web design.
Where did we go wrong!

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/18/2011, 5:47 pm

Thank you Kozan for illuminating and predicting how an institutionally traumatized organization will behave in the face of criticism. While I know that your interest in institutional trauma is mostly about healing, it is interesting to watch how predictably the avoidance of responsibility & change by the OBC is being played out on this thread.

Yeah, its still early days, baby steps to start with, etc etc.

Rev Jiyu said it best when she said if you want to assess the worth of a master (or an organization), lay aside the foliage and flowers and just focus on the fruit.

Thank you Rev. Jiyu for your teaching......anybody see any fruit?

I wonder if her real disciples are actually on the outside of the OBC? All thats left inside is the Telly that someone forgot to turn off when they closed the door and left.

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

I don't think anyone ever said that their meeting was to address our concerns. Nor should it have been since we weren't invited. Wink

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

An updated version of the 1/16 meeting notes was released (see below). Not much new info.

My impression is that the OBC has lost a sense of urgency about carrying forward the remedial measures announced months ago. I had thought the Abbey stated that there would be an Ethics and Disciplinary group formed; now it seems Haryo is "considering" it. I don't understand the comment below about needing to "weigh the spiritual impact on all concerned". The impact of what? Being asked to serve on a committee that has a duty to examine unethical behaviour and act on it? Or is the comment related to the stress of wondering if one's behavior will be reviewed by an ethics committee? I wonder if anyone at that meeting asked for further clarification?

And there seemed to be no question, months ago, that an outside group would be brought in to review what's going on inside the OBC and make recommendations. Have the OBC backed away from that as well?

Sorry about the odd spacing in the message below -- it must be formatting from the original email?

Quote :

--- On Wed, 1/19/11, Gene wrote:

From: [deleted]
Subject: FW: Corrected version of RM Haryo Meeting Notes.
To: [deleted]
Cc: "Rev. Master Haryo Young" , "Rev. Scholastica Hicks"
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 4:00 PM

Subject: Corrected version of RM Haryo Meeting Notes.

19 January 2011

PLEASE NOTE: This message is a corrected
version of the email sent round on the e-tree Jan 17 with the Subject:
"RE: Rev. Master Haryo Meeting Notes" Please ignore/delete that message
and please read this one.

Dear Lay Sangha,

At our request, Rev Master Haryo met with the Lay Sangha on January 16.
Much of the meeting was in follow-up of the previous one:

The Interim Board is continuing the
work of a committee that was established at the conclave to carry
forward a fact finding enquiry at Shasta Abbey, possibly in conjunction
with an outside professional organization, for the purpose of seeing
what we can learn from the events surrounding the former Abbot's
resignation.

See
last email for their many other functions, as well as reference sites
& email addresses for a variety of suggestions, information and
complaints. The working groups that they have planned thus far – Lay
Disciples and Lay Sangha – may be followed by other ones.

The
inadvertent bullet-points-in-Greek from the last synopsis say that the
Interim Board members are still learning how to communicate with each
other over large distances, and are preparing for this year’s Conclave
at Throssel Hole.

The
OBC has disciplinary rules in place and Rev. Master Haryo has an OBC
Advisory Board to help him with that. The OBC is also considering
Committees focused on Ethics and Discipline. He must also weigh the
spiritual impact on all concerned.

The Sangha expressed
willingness to help him, the OBC, and the Abbey to meet their needs.
Rev. Haryo gave examples of help-needed and hard-to-ask for, like
redesigning the OBC website, maintaining the Hotei House garden,
proofreading. Several possible actions were put forth, as the group
brainstormed how to find out where help is needed, what resources we
have and how to keep track of them over time: maybe create a "skills
bank" or data bank of Lay talents available to monastic community. Susan
Place(not Jade), said that she thought a volunteers’
data base might be a suitable project for FOSA and will present
the idea to the FOSA Board. Might they make a list of offerings or use
Bob’s Lay Sangha Excel data base last column or that data base for a new
form, or ask all the monks to put down their needs? Would they be
willing to manage such a project, since the information will not remain
static?

Why were lay ministers created? RM
Haryo reviewed their history, how they are chosen and recent evolution
locally and throughout the Order. Currently, each priory defines lay
minister functions for itself, including meditation instruction, assist
or perform ceremonies, be examples of training, etc. These are listed
in OBC Rules & Bylaws in Guest House library. Liability insurance is
required because they teach meditation and represent the Order. The
brown kesa was discussed. It is still given, but to lay ministers
only. The idea of presenting it to others has been raised, and has met
with some approval, but needs more discussion befoe it can becoem a
change in policy.

How are new people welcomed to Order
and Abbey? How are their questions answered? How do they know resources
available to them? Discussion followed with various ideas. One
observation is that it is up to each of us to take the responsibility to
ask our own questions, to do our own training and look around to see
what is good to do.

The mundane – we’ll propose changing the new
Abbey phone outgoing message to allow caller opportunity to leave
message, or access to live person, before providing extension numbers. comments2shastaabbey@gmail.com is indeed a valid email address for nonmonastics to use for Abbey matters.

A
pearl for those who tend toward guilt at not doing more now: when we
turn toward training to find what is within, it does not mean that we
turn our back on all the other things in the world that are good to do.
It’s what we have chosen to do.

Rev. Master Haryo will be happy to meet again when asked.

In gassho,

Gene

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/20/2011, 2:47 pm

mokuan wrote:: Oh goodness gracious, what silly creatures we've been! We've been discussing institutional trauma when we should have been focusing our energies on hints for garden maintenance, tips for proofreading, and ideas on web design.
Where did we go wrong!

I can't imagine how we managed to overlook such important and relevant issues in our attempts to reveal something as trivial as the abuses of basic human rights - be it to adequate health care, (or any healthcare for that matter) or a place where transgendered people could train with openness, honesty and integrity...

Why does this response not surprise me? Why did this response not feel out of the ordinary from the OBC? Why does this response feel like a total non-response? Having said that, this displays quite beautifully why I left Throssel...

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/23/2011, 11:30 am

Robert,
At the risk of sounding condescending, you seem to have found your voice and the willingness to use it.

Posts : 226 Join date : 2010-07-12

Robert wrote:: response....response....response....non-response?

What response?

I was not aware that the quoted notes were a response to anything.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/23/2011, 1:07 pm

glorfindel wrote:

Robert wrote:: response....response....response....non-response?

What response?

I was not aware that the quoted notes were a response to anything.

Note at the beginning of the thread that Mokuan sent Haryo a message pertaining to how he represented the forum to others during the meeting if OBC Connect came up in the conversation. To be fair we don't know if there was any discussion of the forum and clearly their posted minutes don't mention it. There isn't enough information to conclude that issues surrounding this forum were intentionally ignored at the meeting. More generally though it's fair to conclude that the forum is being intentionally ignored and I think that's what some members are reacting to.

Posts : 226 Join date : 2010-07-12

Isan wrote:

glorfindel wrote:

Robert wrote:: response....response....response....non-response?

What response?

I was not aware that the quoted notes were a response to anything.

Note at the beginning of the thread that Mokuan sent Haryo a message pertaining to how he represented the forum to others during the meeting if OBC Connect came up in the conversation. To be fair we don't know if there was any discussion of the forum and clearly their posted minutes don't mention it. There isn't enough information to conclude that issues surrounding this forum were intentionally ignored at the meeting. More generally though it's fair to conclude that the forum is being intentionally ignored and I think that's what some members are reacting to.

Sure.

Though I think it's important to be clear about what is, and what is not, a response. When people get all emotional about some intra-OBC communication and express frustration that it does not deal with their own concerns....well....it makes me wonder about their reactions to other things that occurred during their involvement with the OBC. And that doesn't help the cause at all.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/23/2011, 3:56 pm

I'm not entirely sure if that was aimed in my direction, but will just say that I never imagined the meeting would address my personal concerns or anything of the sort. I had ( with hindsight somewhat naiively) hoped that the broader and more collective issues raised throughout this forum might be met with more commitment than a seeming dismissal where the gardening, website design and tips for proof reading are cause for greater concern than the many abuses of power expressed in so many ways here. That is what I'd call a non-response; you are, of course welcome to disagree.

Posts : 226 Join date : 2010-07-12

Robert wrote:: I'm not entirely sure if that was aimed in my direction, but will just say that I never imagined the meeting would address my personal concerns or anything of the sort. I had ( with hindsight somewhat naiively) hoped that the broader and more collective issues raised throughout this forum might be met with more commitment than a seeming dismissal where the gardening, website design and tips for proof reading are cause for greater concern than the many abuses of power expressed in so many ways here. That is what I'd call a non-response; you are, of course welcome to disagree.

Hi, yea it was in response to your posting (but also applies to a few other peoples postings I've seen on the forum).

I agree that it would be nice if the OBC gave their perspective on a few events (mainly, for me, the occurrences at North Cascades). Perhaps soon we will see such a statement. However, to treat a random item of communication within the OBC as if it SHOULD be that statement seems a bit silly to me.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/24/2011, 11:09 am

Glorfindel
I'm not sure how random it is. The statements from the OBC that have been posted on OBC Connect with links to them have, to my mind been consistently disappointing. Some months back Meian had a talk that was encouraging regarding a path to seriously look at themselves. The public statements from the OBC since that time that I've seen are very bureaucratic in nature and don't come close to the depth of concerns put forward on this site. If you are aware of any OBC communication on the cleaning up and self reflection that was the stated intention behind the creation of the interim board, I hope you will provide a link to it here. Otherwise I am with Robert: This is not a random communication, but rather a continuation of the lack of self reflection and accountability by the OBC that so many of us have expressed concerns about.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/24/2011, 3:34 pm

I assume everyone has watched political figures be unable to enact the policy changes that they have run on. This is usually the moment where you have to think that they either lied about their plan, discovered new unpalatable consequences of implementing that plan or have discovered that their position doesn't include the power to implement it.

To me the OBC looks like an organization staffed by baggage handlers with serious baggage hoarding issues.

A spokesman may stand up to talk about moving the baggage around but since that spokesman's job is dependant on the support of a staff with a baggage hoarding addiction, not much is likely to happen.

To this degree the "contemplation" part of the OBC seems selective to the degree of being evasive.

I have said that it's great to see Rev. Meian's posting here and I think it would be really wonderful if Rev. Meian's actions forced me to eat the words of this posting. She could even pm me here with the wording of the apology she'd like me to sign and I would happily comply.

If my meditation (or contemplation) doesn't include the willingness to be found wrong, then it is not really meditation. I think this truth applies as much to individuals as it does to the organizations that espouse meditation.

Posts : 226 Join date : 2010-07-12

Henry wrote:: Glorfindel
I'm not sure how random it is. The statements from the OBC that have been posted on OBC Connect with links to them have, to my mind been consistently disappointing. Some months back Meian had a talk that was encouraging regarding a path to seriously look at themselves. The public statements from the OBC since that time that I've seen are very bureaucratic in nature and don't come close to the depth of concerns put forward on this site. If you are aware of any OBC communication on the cleaning up and self reflection that was the stated intention behind the creation of the interim board, I hope you will provide a link to it here. Otherwise I am with Robert: This is not a random communication, but rather a continuation of the lack of self reflection and accountability by the OBC that so many of us have expressed concerns about.

Hi Henry

Just wanted to elucidate my point a bit: If some person (who is this Berthold Ollsen anyway??!) sent an email to Lise containing the Shasta Abbey shopping list for the month of May, and it was posted on OBC Connect, I would not expect that shopping list to broach the concerns raised by people on this forum.

The posted communication was not an ATTEMPT to respond to the concerns raised here. It was not a response. So to treat it as though it was one and to add a smattering of classic rhetorical technique for stirring up emotion (note previously quoted repetition) is just, I will repeat, a bit silly.

I don't think we should be asking, "What kind of a response is THAT?" We should be asking, "Where IS the response?"

IMO of course.

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

hi Glorfindel, Berthold Olson is a senior monk at Shasta. (Nice man, quite funny, a good egg. He comes out with hilarious one-liners, sometimes in the middle of a serious, somber, pious discussion. The room just breaks up in laughter.) To clarify, Berthold hasn't sent me any emails, more's the pity.

[Edited to remove the speculation -- I'm supposed to be working on that, and the sarcasm which wasn't necessary. Sorry, all.]

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

Glorfindel,

I completely agree with you. It is very clear to me that the lay sangha meeting had nothing to do with our concerns, nor was it ever intended to. This was a meeting of the local sangha to meet about their own concerns. I expect that they actually asked RM Haryo if he needed help with anything practical, and he said that he could use some help with the things he listed. I believe that many on this forum have taken this meeting way out of context and looked at it completely through the lense of what they wanted the meeting to be without understanding its actual purpose. Given that scenario, it is understandable that they became upset when it did not live up to their expectations, but in my opinion, those expectations were unrealistic to begin with.

I'm sorry to see the amount of emotion, and most especially sorry to see the level of sarcasm, that has been evinced here regarding this incident.

I think that folks need to understand that even in the worst of circumstances, daily life still goes on. The garden still needs to be tended, the office work still needs to be done. The local laity cannot solve the larger problems, but if they help with the small ones it can leave folks like RM Haryo with more time to address the big things. Whether he will or not is another matter, but that does not detract from what I am saying here for it is a separate issue.

When my mother died, people came and helped me clean the house and did some grocery shopping and cooked some food and did what they could to help. That didn't solve the problem of birth and death, nor ameliorate the grief I felt. But it was a way they could help and they did what they could. I guess I could have been lambasted for accepting their help, and folks could have been very sarcastic about my values and my failure to address the issue of birth and death as evidenced by my pettiness in making up a grocery shopping list to give to them. Truthfully, I think this is a pretty apt analogy for what is going on in this particular thread.

I know that many of us have been deeply hurt by the OBC, and it sometimes doesn't take much to light the fuse that sets that pain off. I know, because I've been hurt very deeply too. But let's be careful not to let that pain turn us from victims into perpetrators. Let us broaden our view and not analyze everything from the perspective of our own desires. The world does not revolve around those, and if we expect it to, we will only be deepening our own suffering.

I know this post will offend many of you and I am sorry for that, for I consider you to be my friends. I truly sympathize with the suffering you've experienced at the hands of the OBC and I want to see that resolved as much as you do. Nothing I've said here stands against that and I hope you will recognize that I am actually on your side. But the sarcasm here has set my teeth on edge and I can tell you flat out that it will not serve our mutual cause.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/25/2011, 5:20 am

Laura--beautifully, and poignantly, expressed.

I suspect that the perceptions that you, Glorfindel, and Isan have of the meeting are right on the mark. I can also sympathize (and largely agree, in different ways) with Mokuan, Howard, Lise, Robert, and Henry's reactions!

You (also) wrote:

"I know that many of us have been deeply hurt by the OBC, and it sometimes doesn't take much to light the fuse that sets that pain off. I know, because I've been hurt very deeply too. But let's be careful not to let that pain turn us from victims into perpetrators. Let us broaden our view and not analyze everything from the perspective of our own desires. The world does not revolve around those, and if we expect it to, we will only be deepening our own suffering."

I think that many of us on the forum are searching for a way to establish a conversation with the OBC about the experiences and concerns expressed here-- and perhaps feeling frustration when acknowledgement is not immediately forthcoming.

I think that you have identified a crucial and primary obstacle to the conversation--the point at which our own painful stories, marshalled in an effort to leverage conversation, can actually become a means of inflicting pain on others (as subtle as this may be, since sarcasm can be subtle), thereby obstructing conversation.

I believe that every person's story, told on this forum, not only stands on its own--but is far more powerful and moving than the person telling it may believe.

I think that trusting the power of one's experience and perception makes it possible to offer it with compassion, rather than inadvertantly turning it into a bludgeon.

A story offered with compassion is not only more powerful, but way easier for others to hear. And, I think that it will be the hearing of these storys that will bring about change. As paradoxical as it sounds, the loudest voice is sometimes the softest. (I learned this many years ago from Haryo, and I'm still trying to act on it!)

In other words--just what you said Laura!

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/25/2011, 8:02 am

A man walks into a McDonalds and orders a hamburger. He, and as he looks around, everyone else, was given a bun with lettuce, tomato and special sauce. He asks, "Where's the beef? Everyone was cheated and didn't get a burger!" A person in the McDonalds says, "I"m OK with this, I ordered mine without a burger." The guy without a burger doesn't give two wits that that a few people didn't order a burger. McDonalds is doing something wrong. Did he do his due diligence to find out exactly to what extent McDonalds has done something wrong? No. Does he care? No. Should he? Not really.

Meian stated that the OBC was going to address problems she viewed as serious. There was an interim board created to address those concerns. Every communication from the board and the OBC that I have seen shows nothing substantial coming out of this statement. Until there is some evidence of "beef" it is completely natural that people would respond to each communication as further evidence of no beef.

I know I didn't do my due diligence as to what the communication was supposed to be about.(It's difficult to keep up with everything written on this site). And while I agree with what Laura and Kozan wrote, my focus was and will remain on "where's the beef." As for those who didn't order beef, I'm sure they're content and won't mind my complaining that the promised order has yet to be filled. When I see someone else get a bun with no burger, I'll likely not trouble to ask them if they ordered the bun with no burger, but until I see someone get a burger, I'll likely assume this is further proof of wrongdoing. Am I right? No. Am I human? Yes.

PS Will I try to be more diligent in the future? I guess it won't hurt to try. (Thanks Kozan, Glorfindle, and Laura).

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/25/2011, 11:38 am

PPS. I just wanted to add that I see Laura, Glorfindel, and Kozan's posts as more
reasonable and helpful in fostering productive conversation with the OBC than my last post. However, I still think there's value in my expressing what I did. I think it puts th error in a more realistic context.

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

Henry, I always value what you have to say. You have in many ways been the protagonist who has helped me step forward and post what I would otherwise have never dared to say. I want you to get some beef too, for we all know that our own beefs have been ignored for way too long. I just want to make sure that we help rather than hinder that process.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/25/2011, 1:16 pm

If only we could all express ourselves in as considered and fair manner as you have Laura and Henry. There are always more than two sides to any situation, no doubt if the guy without beef looked closer, he'd see some burgers lacking the mayo as well as the beef while others have an abundance of ketchup....

Admin Posts : 1431 Join date : 2009-11-08 Age : 49

fyi, for those who might attend -- there was another email following the one below, correcting the next meeting date to February 12 rather than September.

Quote :

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 11:42 am

Laura,
I'm glad I have in some way helped you to be able to speak your mind. From what I've seen here, you've done that with integrity and consideration for all concerned, which can difficult with issues such as we've been dealing with here. With all the good religion tries to do, and with all the myths about how iconoclastic zen practitioners are, in the end we are no different from anyone else. We were in a group that disapproved of speaking out, and so for the most part we kept silent, or spoke to a couple of individuals privately, going along with the standards of the community to not speak publicly. That was my experience and what I witnessed, and it sounds like you experienced much the same. That is why I am so against the "Private conversations only" policy that Meian repeats over and over as an answer to this forum. It is simply a variation on the theme that I saw when I lived at Shasta and that allowed harm to be done and mistakes seen as virtue. It is a set up for keeping the truth manageable and under control. It is not healthy. As I’ve said before, I think both private and public conversations have their place. To my mind, there’s no valid reason to exclude either, if truth and reconciliation are the main concerns. If a few people had similar experiences, I’d say there was no reason for us to speak out publicly or for Meian to have a public dialogue. But this sadly isn’t the case.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

I agree
I want to say No one is beyond being human
If everyone is willing speaking is pdssible

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

Hi Henry,

I agree with you that the secrecy which was enforced at Shasta Abbey was extremely harmful and was used as a power mechanism to control others. I was certainly controlled by it, having been specifically forbidden to discuss my concerns with others or to reveal some of the events I had witnessed. I recently received an email from an old friend who was also a monk during the time I was there. She left after a few years and told me that she, too, was bound to secrecy. My personal opinion is that if something has to be hidden within your own community, especially when it is such a frequent practice as it was at Shasta Abbey, there is definitely something wrong.

At the same time, there is a big difference between open conversation in the context of problem-solving with a group of people who have been directly involved, and open conversation on the internet that is under the nose of anyone and everyone who wants to gawk at it. I am all for the former but I can certainly understand the OBC's reluctance to be part of the latter. This forum is TOO public for my taste. As I've said before, there are some things that I am unwilling to discuss here because I would consider it to be too great an infringement of privacy for people who could be badly hurt and publicly humiliated by it. At the same time, if some of my own issues are to be resolved those events will need to be discussed in specific detail. This is one reason I have accepted RM Meian's offer of private conversation. And, I agree with you that using private conversation as the only tool to address our issues is not satisfactory for precisely the reasons you stated.

I would like to see open discussion that has some constraints in place. Going from absolute secrecy on one hand to shouting our message from the rooftops on the other hand seems to me like going from one extreme to another. Sometimes, the rooftop approach is the only way to burst the secrecy barrier and get the attention of people who are too entrenched in their own view and too certain of their personal superiority over others to be willing to actually listen (a good description of many senior monks at Shasta Abbey imo). But I think we've got their attention now, and I am not convinced that a wholly public forum is a good venue for actually resolving our issues.

Surely, there has to be a middle way. Suggestions anyone?

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Statemeny of willingness would be good,putting down feelings of suoeriority would be good.I am not sure what anyone has to feel superior about, in zen terms who is it that feels superior. There are problems, they ought be faced

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 4:07 pm

We tried to open up a discussion about what would be acceptable to the OBC an invited their input. All that occurred was another OBC proclaim and depart message from Meian: Private conversations only.

I imagine Meian hopes we will get bored and go away. And that's likely what will happen. So if your goal is to not really look deeply into the way things are and have been done at the OBC, I'd say that's a winning strategy. Religions have a way of doing things with little accountability and less self reflection. I guess the OBC as a religious organization going into it's 5th decade has evolved to that point. I don't doubt it will outlast me. OBC Connect willmlikely be just blip in its history. I am just grateful o am no longer there.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 4:19 pm

Hey laura

I'm afraid that shouting from the rooftops may need to be continued or the years of secretive inertia will just re assert itself. Anyone who has wondered at how they themselves could of been a party to the manipulation has all the evidence of how powerful a force it is to overcome. I am not sure that simply getting Shasta's attention will be enough in itself.

AND

If past traumas can be healed through private conversation, then why not do it as well.

Perhaps the middle way will evolve between these two necessary actions.

I am sure that nothing short of compassion & love on all sides (do we walk the walk or not) will be needed to define that middle way

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 4:40 pm

Laura

You wrote
I agree with you that the secrecy which was enforced at Shasta Abbey was extremely harmful and was used as a power mechanism to control others. I was certainly controlled by it, having been specifically forbidden to discuss my concerns with others or to reveal some of the events I had witnessed. I recently received an email from an old friend who was also a monk during the time I was there. She left after a few years and told me that she, too, was bound to secrecy. My personal opinion is that if something has to be hidden within your own community, especially when it is such a frequent practice as it was at Shasta Abbey, there is definitely something wrong.

How amazing is this. I wonder how the organization, the Zen monastery, that all of us 20 somethings in the 70s went to to devote our lives to evolved into this secretive place that appears more concerned with self preservation than the truth. Why can't what happened be openly discussed between spiritual adults to find a solution to mistakes made. Or is the assumption that the only spiritual adults are a few people on the top of the heirarchy. What arrogance, but nothing I hadn't seen there many times before. And they don't even see it. They just want to their image to remain intact and minimize the damage. Their interim board communications talk of nothing but beaurocratic matters and the minimal real stuff they said they were going to do have become possibilities. But when it comes to religious organizations this all appears par for the course. It's amazing to see the ideals of the people who started the OBC and the OBC itself become a mediocre religioius organization willing to do what all the rest of them do. Cover up, enforce silence, and make as little public as possible. It reeks of self preservation and begs for a breath of fresh air.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Well I agree, On the basis that there has been a lot of criticism of Kennett Roshi, and her next in line was removed from office, and there seems to be alot of hurt, it would be good for proper communications to try and help the situation. I feel Rev Mein would like that as she has sort of indicated that she would. I feel from my situation Henry even though I left and am not involved now,I would be more than happy to support a resolving situation. Please let me know if I have not understood you

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

Um, sorry to say Henry, I think the basic assumption that was in effect for the eleven years I was there was that:

Quote :: the only spiritual adults are a few people on the top of the heirarchy.

It is important to note that I was there until just 3 years ago. I doubt if that attitude has changed much since Eko's departure. It appears to be a direct result of RM Jiyu's legacy after her Lotus Blossom period.

Chisan - I don't ever think I've taken the time to say how much I appreciate your kind heart and your presence on these forums. Thank you!

Howard, ok - good point - the middle way could be a combination of the public and roof top approaches. And you have another excellent point regarding the force of inertia. I've just never seen myself as a shouting from the rooftops kind of person. Well, I did attend anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam war error in the late '60's early '70's, but I was younger then. hmm

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Well thats nice Laura
Maybe we are entering a new period we have voiced our criticisms and if Buddhism has meant anything to us, we should try to help,everyone that has suffered, and if we are Buddhists,I believe that includes all of us

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 5:45 pm

A friend of mine told me about a documentary he saw on Ford. Hope this is accurate as it's second hand. Ford found a new CEO that used to be CEO of Boeing. When he came to Ford he shook things up. Ford, like all American cars had a terrible reputation for quality. Their arch enemy was Consumer Reports, who trashed their cars year after year. The new CEO along with other top people at Ford physically went to Consumer Reports. The CEO was straightforward and asked CR, "What do we need to do make a good car?" CR proceeding to politely, but essentially, rip them a new one. Many from Ford started to defend themselves, but the CEO told them that they were there to listen and learn. That they did. Ford's reputation has improved drastically and the Fusion is CR's second best rated sedan. Their other cars are doing well also. That is what you do when you're serious about fixing problems. What I see coming out of the OBC truly is a joke in comparison to people and organizations who take the criticisms they receive seriously.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Again I agree Henry, I am sincere in offering olive branches,I feel my own meditation demands I do, if they are not accepted that is something else,It is more than an olive branch to say lets be friends it is an olive branch to to say can issues be discussed and resolved. Most people who read this will nod their head I think,may have reservations, but I think nod their head. A head nod is at least a start

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

What a great story Henry! The key point there, I think, is that the new CEO was not heavily invested in the production of Ford's cars in the past and so he personally had nothing to defend. It enabled him to listen objectively to criticism, unlike his counterparts who were bristling under the criticism of "their" cars. Hmmm, perhaps you could say that the CEO was able to act from a place of "no self"?

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Cars don't talk to me about cars. I know nothing about them ,can't tell them apart and blow them up regularly,usually as I do not put oil in ,and do not know where it goes, I put the wrong fuel in. And when I buy one, I phone up the garage and say I want a car, they say what type and I say red. They love me. I drive a red one now,blown the clutch, and drive around with a smashed windscreen,It is quite new,I use it as a van,so I have stopped using it and drive a beat up van now. If you are car lovers I will send over a case of chamious leather, and a box of polish as some sort of repentance,

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/29/2011, 9:58 pm

Laura, you speak of you and others being systematically bound to secrecy. Under the given circumstances there is only one reason for this and that is shame. A shame that must be hidden and suppressed. A shame that must be denied and decried....A shame that must be recognised and faced. A shame that must be confessed, repented and redressed. And finally, but only after all that has been gone through a shame that must be forgiven with compassionate reconciliation.

Laura, don't be made party to the shame by being bound to silence. Don't necessarily speak out, but don't be bound to silence. By accepting you are made party to the abuse. It is the common cry of the abuser that talk will not mend the hurt but only damage the innocent, including the abused. And then to bind the abused into the abuse with silence. Don't be bound in to silence. Don't speak publically if you don't want to, it is you choice, just don't be bound to silence and shame. In the Catholic Church it is the confessor who is bound to silence not the confessed, they can speak as freely they want.

For many years I would not talk about my experiences leaving Shasta, except very occasionally and only then with those I had shared the experience with. Because I was ashamed of having dedicated myself to an organisation that had gone so wrong, because I thought it might hurt those I cared for who were still there, because it could have brought ridicule and contempt on an organisation that I had once loved. I was wrong. The truth is the truth is the truth. Wasn't that what I had dedicated my life to when I was ordained? The truth, always simple, often messy and sometimes painful, but the truth.

The unfolding of the Catholic abuse scandal has much in common with us here. This is a quote from a fine article on the subject by Peggy Noon, a Catholic reporter with the Wall Street Journal. The rest of the article is well worth reading:

Quote :

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=517[/i][/quote[/url]][/i]

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/30/2011, 9:49 am

Thank you Mark. You have expressed my own feelings and experience very very well. This is the value of public discourse that private one on one conversations can never duplicate. Our experience is so frighteningly (and simultaneously redeemingly) similar and that can't be revealed in one on one private conversations. Thank you again Mark for speaking of my own shame and struggle. I suspect we are not alone.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

As Mark knows my own dilema of being told by Bill Picard to write his life story after he died.Fortunately I wrote it soon after he died,and it has been sitting in a drawer eversince,simply because of my problem of revealing information about why he and I left our association with kennett Roshi. I sent a copy to Mark,and told Josh (jitsudo) they both said up to me to say what I want,which sort of threw it back on me. It is getting close to release time now,I think the web site has helped me clarify things,and helped me see that actually there was an aftermath of events I knew nothing about,But Mark is right we were trained to drop criticism,and complaint,we gave up our ability to speak. I was very pleased when gensho told me in private email that he resigned his Jishsaship,it meant to me he did do what he could to say hang on,rather than do nothing. When one is involved in a group,it is difficult to find ones way,realise training and enlightenment are independant of all things, even teachers...... shame struggle ....... no one kills your dignity

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/30/2011, 2:31 pm

Chisan,
I hope you do release your story of Bill. It seems like there is something in you that wants, perhaps needs to. It is funny how the story of you original folks, then the people who came after, and now the most recent crop, including Laura, all speak of the same pressure to be silent, to stifle what we think, believe and feel. Always leaving criticisms, genuine concerns, "on the back burner" supposedly until we are dead and silenced for good. All in the name of those in the hierarchy knowing better than we do. Why do they get to speak of their righteousness, correctness, and enlightenment and our misguidedness, delusion, and folly, and we must remain silent? But how is this different from any other church? I guess we just thought we were joining up with something very different, but in the end we had joined the same old, same old. I guess the important thing is that we take what was good and leave the foolishness and delusion for the OBC to play with. Here we can speak our minds and let others decide for themselves if what the OBC offers is good for them or not. At least they will hear another side.

Posts : 1640 Join date : 2010-11-17

Henry I will
it is written in book form, Maybe a few bits to put in,His time with south American Indians,Time in Africa,time in the Hymalayas.
The there is some very personal stuff,which needs thinking about.
Bills transmisson,that needs to be written by Mark and or Gensho
when I visited him just befor he died,he felt troubled by something it was someones death a long time ago, he was very troubled by it, I said I would light some incense and do a a Buddhist chant.Which I did. He did not like it,not what I was doing,or my sincerity anything like that. he just did not like Buddhist form in any way.Yet he was a devoted Buddhist.

There seems a lot of depths to the story which do unfold for me, I feel I have a great sense of responsibility and perhaps talk about it with Mark maybe lots of other people first.

Bill was not one for heirarchy,or anything other than pur zazen,if we all felt the same,we would not have the same problems that we talk about.
We must make sure we stand by our beliefs,and do not fall into what we feel is erroneous views

Posts : 124 Join date : 2010-07-30 Location : Portland, OR

Gosh, Henry, I think you've hit the nail right on the head when you say:

Quote :: I guess we just thought we were joining up with something very different, but in the end we had joined the same old, same old.

This is certainly the way I feel. Religion has played a very large part in my life from an early age, but I was never able to work my way past the blind faith, believe it because we say so attitude I found in every Western religion I encountered. I wanted to know the truth for myself, not as second-hand, but as first-hand knowledge. When I read that the Buddha said, "Don't believe anything just because I say so; believe it when you know it to be true for yourself", I knew I had found the religion that I was looking for.

I still believe in the Buddha's teaching, but my experience at Shasta Abbey has taught me that organized religion appears to be the same old, same old. I can honestly say that I will never have anything to do with organized religion again after my experiences there. But I will always treasure the Buddha's trust in our own ability to question and thus discover the truth for ourselves.

Subject: Re: Shasta lay sangha meeting of 16 Jan 1/30/2011, 8:10 pm

Henry wrote:
"I wonder how the organization, the Zen monastery, that all of us 20 somethings in the 70s went to to devote our lives to evolved into this secretive place that appears more concerned with self preservation than the truth. Why can't what happened be openly discussed between spiritual adults to find a solution to mistakes made....
But when it comes to religious organizations this all appears par for the course."

Laura wrote:
Gosh, Henry, I think you've hit the nail right on the head when you say:
"I guess we just thought we were joining up with something very different, but in the end we had joined the same old, same old."

"I still believe in the Buddha's teaching, but my experience at Shasta Abbey has taught me that organized religion appears to be the same old, same old."

Laura and Henry, I think that you have identified a central issue, or perphaps the central issue, underlying the obstacle to communication with the OBC.

I have come to think that in many ways, organized religion, as the institutionalization of spiritual teaching and practice, always evolves to become a form of delusion no matter how enlightened the original teaching may be. (I explored this idea in several early posts.) The essence of the concept is that spiritual teaching always entails paradox, which is not easily retained by language. Religious organizations tend to choose whichever side of the paradox best supports their own institutional needs, and teaching and practice thereby tend to become onesided. RMJK did this routinely. The change in her position on celibacy is only one of many examples.

However, religious institutions can (and should) provide an essential vehicle for ensuring the continued Transmission of teaching and practice. And yet, they arguably cannot achieve this purpose should they become a form of delusion, as seems to be their nature!

It occurs to me that a way through this dilema might become possible if a religious institution recognizes, as a first principle, that it itself is inherently a form of delusion--and that its purpose for existing is only to serve as a vehicle for teaching that is nothing more than a finger pointing to the moon.

A religious organization that accepts the fact that the institutionalization of spiritual teaching and practice will always constitute a form of delusion has nothing to lose by subjecting itself to the same scrutiny of awareness that it is promoting for individuals. And it will be more likely to recognize the importance of doing so continuously.

On the other hand, a religious organization that fails to recognize its own inherent potential for delusion and dysfunction is likely to find that it has a great deal to hide, and will probably become very resistant to change!

» Shasta sangha meeting on May 7
» The cyber sangha says
» Shasta Abbey for Seekers?
» Expression of Grattitude for the Shasta Monks
» "Dust up" at Shasta Abbey