for the disgruntled among us (or not)

[Admin note: This thread was split from one created by OreDAD called
"How this forum may have saved my son". It shows chisanmichaelhughes as
the author because his post is the first one in the sequence of posts
that were moved, but this is only a function of the forum software. The thread split occurred because the conversation developed into a lively exchange on what words mean, which was not the original poster's topic.]

Olga
I am very sorry your husband has been in hospital

I hope he is okay

Long time together more united you are

Take care
Love Michael

Firstly, best wishes from me also for a full and speedy recovery from whatever put your husband into the hospital. I also would like to say that I had the same reaction as you did to Jimyos choice of word "disgruntled". Those of us that put all our faith and trust, gave our love and support, for years on end (often decades) , did not just separate from the OBC because we were merely "disgruntled", it was because we were DISILLUSIONED and there is a vast gulf between being "disgruntled" and "disillusioned". You don't spend large chunks of your life as a dedicated member of an organization and then simply walk away "disgruntled" , but because you finally need to admit that you have made an error in judgment and that you can no longer pretend to overlook what for so long should have been obvious to you from early on. Furthermore, it takes a lot more than just being merely "disgruntled" to walk away from a practice that has penetrated all of your being for such a long time, walk away from all that you loved and believed in for so long, no, it takes GUTS.

Ol'ga,my thoughts are with you as you and your husband struggle with illness and hospitalization. I hope our collective strength will help support you in this difficult time.

Thank you, friends, for your kind thoughts. It's so warming to feel your support. David is recovering but very fragile still. I, through the process, am learning some nursing skills, and discovering a peace of mind that comes from simply doing what needs to be done. Maybe, in my old age, I'll even learn discipline! What a teacher life is, man.
O.

breljo wrote:

I also would like to say that I had the same reaction as you did to Jimyo's choice of word "disgruntled".

I may have used a word that was not precisely the best one. I was summarising, and giving my impressions generally. As I've said, things on the internet can be misunderstood. And I can't always find the most appropriate word for every single person on every post; not that good with words.

However, rather I tend to rather agree with Josh that "if something on this site upsets some people, well that's interesting isn't it? Why are they upset?"

So you don't like what I said? Well, as Josh continues: "No one forces you to read anything. Only think the thoughts that make you feel good if you want."

Continuing with Josh's post: "Now, if you are still playing the Kennett / Shasta game, if you are still following those rules..."

Just to set the record straight, I never played any game, or followed any rules, then or at almost any other time. I questioned things at Throssel and Shasta, as Daiji and Hofuku would be able to verify, if they remembered - after all, they both ran OBC temples when I was there. I didn't worry about the consequences. I've always said what I thought. That's what I do.

"you think the checkerboard is the whole of life, is reality, the best
reality, the true way, the only way, the only way to play the game. In
fact, you don't even realize that you are playing a game."

No, I'm not playing the game. You don't know me, so you don't know that. Saying that is pretty insulting actually.

Interestingly, when I stopped arguing at Shasta because no-one was listening anyway, was when things started to get really interesting and I found what I'd been looking for all my life. And I was told I'd had a kensho. I didn't really care about that. After all, it was just a word. Maybe there was some relationship between those facts above; maybe not. I never knew or really cared, and I still don't.

Just a further comment. There appear to be different rules for those who are basically 'pro' OBC and those who are 'anti' on here. The former are pulled up for every word out of place. For the latter - well, they had a hard time with the OBC, so now anything can be excused, can't it? Those are my impressions. And it seems a little unfair. It could explain, Lise, why the 'pros' don't come on here often or stay long. We don't find it much fun here actually. Would you?

Jimyo wrote:

So you don't like what I said? Well, as Josh continues: "No one forces you to read anything. Only think the thoughts that make you feel good if you want."

No, I'm not playing the game. You don't know me, so you don't know that. Saying that is pretty insulting actually.

Just a further comment. There appear to be different rules for those who are basically 'pro' OBC and those who are 'anti' on here. The former are pulled up for every word out of place. For the latter - well, they had a hard time with the OBC, so now anything can be excused, can't it? Those are my impressions. And it seems a little unfair. It could explain, Lise, why the 'pros' don't come on here often or stay long. We don't find it much fun here actually. Would you?

One way that I try to minimize misunderstanding is to keep my posts as specific as possible. It seems to me that as the statements in posts become more general they also become more inaccurate as to how they apply to individuals. When the fit becomes poor enough a post can appear insulting, as Josh's did to you, but I doubt he was actually speaking to you directly (he will have to confirm/deny this though).

The notion that the forum divides between pro-OBC Vs anti-OBC viewpoints is also a broad generalization with limited value. There are in fact multiple loosely defined "groups" which are in flux, and when I look more closely I see that each individual has something unique to say even when they are openly agreeing with someone else.

The forum has a largely negative slant on the OBC because it was started by ex-members and attracted other ex-members who, until the forum's creation, did not have a place to express and process their negative experiences. It is what it is. That does make it less hospitable to those who are "pro OBC", but again these are generalizations. There are a number of people, such as Stan, who essentially come down on the "pro" side of the debate, but nevertheless are sufficiently open-minded that they are not intimidated by the criticism and can engage constructively. There are others, such as myself, who come down on the negative side, but are appreciative of what was good about OBC practice and hold a nuanced view. Perhaps most importantly that "group" is not focused primarily on finding fault but on facilitating reconciliation.

I believe the largest single grievance held by ex-members is the fact that the OBC will not respond in a formal, meaningful way to the many complaints laid at its' door over a great many years. I believe that is a systemic fault and until it is remedied the over all tone here will not change. You are not personally responsible for this, but as a "pro OBC" member you are seen as indirectly supporting their policies. Do you support their policies?

[Edited to say, I missed Isan's post while submitting my own. Good points made - ]

Jimyo, if you can point to some examples of people being treated differently by administrators, we will look at them. As far as other members not liking a word that was used, it's their right to comment. If they do so respectfully and within forum guidelines, there's no basis for admin action.

If you're thinking of Segodon's post being edited, it's true that we do that when people break the rules (name-calling, personal attack). We also edited Henry's posts for name-calling, and I wouldn't label him pro-OBC. Other posts have been edited because they violated the privacy of a private individual (someone who is not a public figure, like an OBC monk who identifies himself/herself to the world as a teacher). So, again, if you give me examples I will review them and try to see if we are treating anyone differently.

This is where I see communication breaking down on the forum, time and again: when we cannot acknowledge (because our own experience is different) that someone else's views deserve recognition as being valid, for them, and that their opinion should be respected (not the same as agreed with). Not everyone here does this, but some do. They seem to comment only in order to debunk, dismantle, disprove another person's expression of his/her own experience if it doesn't agree their own. They tend to not comment on the facts someone has just related -- they go straight to "well, I never saw that". Which reads as a pretty complete dismissal of what someone else has just related, sometimes in great detail and with circumspect wording.

It's not always about "what I did see" when I was there. It's also about "what did the other folks see?" A simple acknowledgement of "yes, I heard you say that" - which in no way means "and I agree and you're right" -- could go a long way.

Hi, Jimyo

As you say it is not always easy to find just the right word to express what it is you are trying to say, and I have often found myself in the same predicament as you have, so my apologies if my comment upset you. I do feel though, that there is much value in the function of this forum, since it allows former, as well as present members of the OBC a means to discuss with each other things that deeply concern(ed) or affect(ed) them for a large part of their lives. Eventually, yes we will all "move on" in our own way and this will all become part of the collective exprience and hopefully we will have learned something from it.

In regard to your other comment and further reference to Josh's quote that no one forces you to read anything when not liking what someone has to say, I would have to respectfully ask of how I would know ahead of time whether what I am about to read will be to my liking or not without actually reading it in the first place?

Greetings and regards and much luck with your book too

Brigitte

@ Isan:

"When the fit becomes poor enough a post can
appear insulting, as Josh's did to you, but I doubt he was actually
speaking to you directly (he will have to confirm/deny this though)."

Josh's post appeared to be responding to Stan or me or both. That makes it rather likely that he WAS speaking to me directly.

"I believe the largest single grievance held by
ex-members is the fact that the OBC will not respond in a formal,
meaningful way to the many complaints laid at its' door over a great
many years. I believe that is a systemic fault and until it is remedied
the over all tone here will not change. You are not personally
responsible for this, but as a "pro OBC" member you are seen as
indirectly supporting their policies. Do you support their policies?"

Didn't Rev Haryo talk to Polly? Didn't Rev Meian agree to talk to anyone? And anyway, is it appropriate that I should be seen as supporting OBC policies when the vast majority of my posts quite deliberately concentrate on my own personal experiences? And which OBC policies are you specifically referring to?

@Lise:

"....their opinion
should be respected (not the same as agreed with). Not everyone here
does this, but some do. They seem to comment only in order to debunk,
dismantle, disprove another person's expression of his/her own
experience if it doesn't agree their own."

My point exactly! This works both ways you know. I feel as though I haven't been heard on here at all.

@ Breljo:

"In regard to your other comment and further reference to Josh's quote
that no one forces you to read anything when not liking what someone has
to say, I would have to respectfully ask of how I would know ahead of
time whether what I am about to read will be to my liking or not without
actually reading it in the first place?"

My point exactly. Why don't you ask Josh? I'm so, so glad that someone else has picked him up on that; thank you!

@ ddolmar:

"Jimyo I love your new picture"

Thank you!

Jimyo I must put my hand up I am definitely one of the 'disgruntled'. The OED defines it as 'angry or dissatisfied', I am definitely dissatisfied with what happened at Shasta, and reading through my posts sometimes at least verging on anger, so I think that disgruntled is the 'mot juste'. And looking at the posts of those of us here who have criticised Shasta and Jiyu disgruntled with it's undertones of merely grumbly would seem quite mild for some posts. On the other hand reading your posts, and some from other supporters of the OBC, I would say that they sometimes appear disgruntled with us critics of the OBC; and of course why shouldn't they, they have every right to be disgruntled with our criticisms of something they love. I suppose people object because they feel it does not apply to them, but then it was not applied as a universal description, or they feel it is a disparaging term, which I don't feel it is.


So I at least am happy to sign myself, disgruntled of OBCconnect (Mm.. another tee-shirt slogan perhaps, to go with 'OBCconnect yada yadaist')

My Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 7th ed., my Bible, says:
disgruntled , a. discontented, moody, sulky.

My New Collins Thesaurus, 1984 reads:
disgruntled - annoyed, cheesed off (Brit. sl.), discontented, displeased, dissatisfied, grumpy, irritated, malcontent, peeved, peevish, petulant, put out, sulky, sullen, testy, vexed.

I am not a native speaker of English, but have come accross this expression in several of the above senses, and would say that to describe me, and some others here as disgruntled, is disrespectful, and dismissive of our painful experience, at the least.

Ol'ga's definition of "Disgruntled" is the more correct in American English, I think, as the phrase "disgruntled employee" strongly suggests that the problem was with the employee.

What word accurately describes the former disciples who left under difficult circs? Are you disaffected? Some definitions of this include the word "disloyal", so probably no for most of you. Estranged? Hostile? "Vexed" seems like a pretty good word but too mild. Hurt or wounded? Maybe, but y'all have also got on with your lives.

So it's probably not easy to accurately describe with a single adjective a group of people who don't speak with one voice, and maybe not advisable.

But I think that the lack of assumed good faith on the part of some readers is a shame, when Jimyo has been pretty civil (hasn't she?) By "good faith" I mean the assumption that if a post is tossed off and has an inexact word or two, no insult was really intended.

C'mon, try to find an adjective that describes the pro-OBC facton here as a group. Are we gruntled?

I double-dog dare ya.

Thank you, Dan, for observing protocol by not going straight to the dreaded "triple-dog dare".

This a fun challenge for the wordsmiths in the group - must ponder this one -

ddolmar wrote:

I double-dog dare ya.

"proselytized"

Dan - thanks for the clarification and pouring oil on troubled waters, yes I think we come across a place where our common language 'divides' us. On this side of the pond disgruntled does not necessarily carry the pejorative overtones that it seems on your side. Over here if I said I was a disgruntled employee I would mean that I was justifiably upset and angry about something my employers had done.



Olga - my apologies yet again! There was no intention to disparage anyone's hurt or anger, quite the opposite. If I have done so I am very sorry.



Jimyo - looks like we are condemned as limeys again!

Jimyo,

Rev. Haryo did indeed talk to me, and sent me a couple of e-mails besides. He was kind, gracious, funny and patient with me, for I was still very angry and hurt. He suggested some creative ways to circumvent one's Master's foibles, and gave me some very good things to think about regarding the self, among other things. What he didn't do was ever, ever suggest that what had happened to me was wrong in any way, nor that what happened to the elderly woman I saw treated in an abusive way was wrong. There was no accountability for what happened whatsoever. However, I did get some great tips on how to manipulate a Zen Master into doing their job. The path he chose to take to address my concerns with the monk I dealt with was one I most hoped he would not.

Still, he is a charming man and I hope a good one. He accepted a very tart lecture from me on what I felt were his responsibilities to his laity. But did he hear me? The more I hear about EEEKO Little the more I feel duped in general. Not just by Shasta though; I think such actions are common in the twisted world of spiritual hierarchy, perhaps any hierarchy where such absolute authority is granted. I bow out of all of it now. Clearly to me the OBC is not all bad. Very little is ALL bad. Just don't anybody ask me for a reference for it.

Polly

Mark wrote:
Olga - my apologies yet again! There was no intention to disparage
anyone's hurt or anger, quite the opposite. If I have done so I am very
sorry.
Mark, my friend, I never thought you disparaged anyone's hurt or anger - you would have to disparage your own.
We could continue discussing the word in question till the cows come home, but everyone would be utterly bored, except me. I am a perpetual student of English, am fascinated by it, and never grow tired of it. It does appear that the word means different things to different people; based on the quotes from the two editions of Oxford dictionary, it seems that the meaning shifted in British English itself. Still, I would like to say that I do not consider myself 'dissatisfied, angry' with respect to Shasta, either. My position is that I basically reject the venture as I knew it. Obviously, there is a lot of good in it, and one can grow there, mature, and benefit. But one can do those things in an abusive marriage, too...My main objection to the methodology at Shasta, as I see it, is that bad treatment was frequently deliberate, putatively in the service of spiritual guidance. I firmly believe that that is pernicious nonsence. End does NOT justify the means. I am with Josh (if I read him correctly), that the 'disease' there was not an isolated instance, but was endemic. Something is Shasta-ish in the state of Denmark...
I do have a quarrel with Jimyo, though, which does not hinge on her usage of that word alone. I would have to fish out quotations from her contributions, try to pull them together without taking them out of context - a lot of work, with a questionable result. So I think I'll leave it alone. We are probably on the opposite ends of the spectrum on this forum. I may be equally isolated as she is, and, possibly, no more liked. I can't say I don't mind...but there is not an awful lot I can do about it.
As usual my bed beckons, which is just as well.
O.

Ol'ga wrote:

I do have a quarrel with Jimyo, though, which does not hinge on her usage of that word alone. I would have to fish out quotations from her contributions, try to pull them together without taking them out of context - a lot of work, with a questionable result. So I think I'll leave it alone. We are probably on the opposite ends of the spectrum on this forum. I may be equally isolated as she is, and, possibly, no more liked. I can't say I don't mind...but there is not an awful lot I can do about it.
As usual my bed beckons, which is just as well.
O.

Oh great! Someone I don't even remember talking to has a quarrel with me, and won't even say why. She also labels me as 'isolated' and 'not liked'. How am I supposed to feel about this?

Note to self: Delete OBC Forum tab, and remove it from Favourites. Only come in here very occasionally for the two good reasons you know for being here:-
1) To hopefully find old friends.
2) To occasionally remind the world at large that there is more than one opinion about the OBC.
Otherwise be good to yourself and stay away.

Bye everyone.....

:-) Hi Ol'ga ~

Is your "quarrel" with Jimyo a serious fight thing, for which dictionaries may give such meanings as: "an angry disagreement, dispute, altercation, or argument; a falling out..."? Or are you using the word with a lighter touch, for which dictionaries may give such meanings as: "a cause of disagreement, dispute or grievance; a difference..."? Or is there some other way you can describe this "quarrel"? (Is it filled to the brim with antipathy, for example? Hope not, but had to ask!) I'm sorry I've piled work on your plate again...explanations can seem never ending on this forum...! (-:

Hello,
My apologies.
Jimyo, Anne: I meant having a quarrel with Jimyo in the sense that I do not have a quarrel with Mark. I mean 'quarrel' in the sense of difference. I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that my latest post would be read in the context of the discussion about the use of the word 'disgruntled'. I think it is obvious we hold different views, Jimyo, from what both of us said on the forum. I don't consider having different opinions to be a cause for animosity. I would like to state this quite clearly: I don't hold any anymosity towards Jimyo.
Jimyo: When I wrote "I may be equally isolated and not liked as you are", I surmised that you may see your pronouncements as isolated and not liked on this forum as I often see mine. My wording obscured the fact that I was talking about our contributions and not us as persons. At any rate, it was indeed a surmise on my part, gleaned from some things you have said. I may be totally wrong, and should not have said this even if I am right, to whatever degree I may be. It was insensitive of me to have said this, and very possibly entirely incorrect. I am sorry.
Ol'ga

:-) Many thanks for the explanation, O. (-:

I can see that the concise definitions of words and what they mean to different people can
as Ol'ga says, be argued till the moon comes out (or something like that), just as to me the word "disgruntled" carried a dismissive attitude with it and put most of the weight of blame on the "disgruntlee" ????, rather then the "disgruntlor"???????, although as "Kid" put it. that the disgruntled ones just simply couldn't hack it. I had to look at that statement pretty honestly, since often I asked myself the very same thing , Zen is not for the faint hearted, and especially those that want to go deeper and deeper into this training have to realize that they will not be handled with kid gloves. Were we disgruntled ones just like wild horses that couldn't be broken in and submit to having our wills broken, just so that then we eventually might be able to see our True Nature? One of the Reverends often told the story of a Horse that was being beaten and finally just submissively bowing, getting down on its front legs. So, is it really necessary to give up all dignity and trust that that is for your benefit? and is there perhaps a way to finally discern between what is "good for you" or whether it's just simple inordinate rudeness and contempt that's being brought down upon one by often not very "skilful means"?

It takes courage, to really look into your inner being, to persue all the little recesses in your mind where the dust might still be settling and bring it all to light and if you really look with honesty and diligence you may eventually have at least a measure of success and admit that it is an endless process, and one that does not necessarily need the approval or confirmation of anyone that deems to know you better then yourself. When the Buddha lay dying andI believe it was Ananda asked who the Sangha was to look for after the Buddhas demise, he reminded them to "Be a lamp unto yourself" . That is pretty good advice right there.

Just a point of clarification, I think was Segodon who made the comment about "couldn't hack it at the Abbey".

Correct, Lise.

Segodon wrote:
The people seem to be divided mainly into two groups, first, a [Admin
delete] that seem to think they know better than anyone else how to
organize & run a religious order, & secondly, a much larger
bunch of [Admin delete]that just couldn't hack it at the Abbey,
for whatever reasons.

O.

I was thinking just now, I would like to divide myself like an amoeba so I can be in both of Segodon's groups, above. At this point, yes, I do believe I could organise and run a religious order better than certain groups I can think of . . . and I'm not even religious, for heaven's sake. And, guilty as charged, I couldn't hack it at the Abbey. Common sense wouldn't allow it.

Ok, a public service announcement: this evening I will split this thread so that OreDAD's original post isn't lost, and we can carry on with these interesting tangents in another spot.

Oops, apologies to Kid and thanks to the sharp eyed ones for catching that, cetainly would not want to detract from the gravity of Segodons opinions.