Additional info on Michael Little CONTINUED

First topic message reminder :

Since Lise unaccountably locked the topic, and, disturbingly, did so precisely when Nicky posted a dissenting posting, taking the discussion in a new direction, I am now starting a continuation of it.

I refrained from posting on this thread, since I found the discussion seriously and disturbingly off kilter.
I find that Michael - Eko - Little is being given a good deal of the benefit of the doubt in this discussion. Towards the end of the thread, in Howard's posting, ff, he was given much compassion and a very explicit support, without condemnation of his - alleged - actions. In the discussion on the thread, the women, the victims of his extremely hurtful, abhorrent actions were repeatedly questioned, subjected to scrutiny, and treated with patent disrespect. In Howard's benediction they are oddly omitted as victims of Little's actions:

"Blessings for Mr.Little, Blessings for his former disciples and
Blessings for the Shasta Sangha at large."

Howard also wrote:
Sorrowful [thread] for Mr Little to have the details of his koan so publicly splashed about.

Please! Nobody 'publicly splashed about' the details of Mr Little's koan. Meian, very properly and responsibly, informed her flock of Little's execrable actions. Actually, she could not have acted otherwise. This being discussed on the public forum such as this, is a consequence of Little's actions. To expend much compassion towards him in this regard, is out of place. To tell the truth, it makes me quite sick.

Gentlemen, please understand that what the women concerned were subjected to is a terrible experience.

Ladies, if you can't see it, and feel for and stand by your sisters, I am utterly dismayed.

It is indeed true that Little's alleged actions have not been proven in the court of law, nor are they ever likely to be. However, since several claimants have come forward; since it is extremely unlikely that Meian would have acted the way she did, unless she had solid grounds for her conclusions; and since on this forum we have read enough troubling testimony about Little from Laura, an eminently trustworthy source of great integrity - and, of course, Diana, with authenticity that does not leave much open to doubt; because of all this, the benefit of the doubt should definitely go to the victims.

I hope to God that none of the victims have read certain comments in this (now locked) thread. I can't imagine that they would not feel violated anew by some of them.

Please face the gravity of Little's misconduct, and harm it has caused.

And Lise, in future please give sufficient aviso when you intend to lock a thread.

Ol'ga

Absolutely Bill.
For me personally I would add that if people in authority at Shasta knew of the allegations and stood back and by so doing allowed this behavior to happen, than they too are responsible for any hurt that may have been done,and should also be accountable

hi Michael (and all) - I have rec'd information from a very reliable source who has said, at least in regard to the phone calls, that the Shasta monks did not know what M. Little was doing up until the women came forward with their experiences. This doesn't mean the senior monks couldn't have done more to investigate and monitor his behaviour overall, which Laura and others had been warning them about for years. Obviously there were signs which they refused to heed, Meian included. So it's a mixed situation as far as what they knew and when.

The same friend of the forum has provided additional info which I hope to get posted this weekend sometime. Just to be clear in the meantime, the source is not a monk and does not speak for OBC.

@ Lise

Does your source say whether the women had come forward before or after Eko left? And what timely actions did senior monks take when this information became available? (It should be noted that in the dynamics of abuse any person so victimized would understandably be highly unlikely to come forward when the abuser is still in a position of power. )

Thanks Lise
Are you saying that no one knew of any complaints about Eko before he resigned?

I wrote

"The monks of the OBC have so long been immersed in a variety of psychological aberrations that they are thoroughly marinated. To even catch a glimpse of a reality outside of those aberrations is a feat on a monumental scale."

This statement makes me wonder about my own psychological aberrations. I like much better Kozan's term of institutional trauma. I by no means think the present monks in the OBC do not see clearly in many areas. I also feel confident that they are doing a lot of good with many people. These folks have expressed this on this site. I do, however, believe there are very serious blind spots. These blind spots do cause significant harm (also attested to on this site). Life in complex and not black and white. These two can exist simultaneously.

A significant problem that I see, is that although monks feel a certain degree of security in being protected from the delusions of the world, what i do think they've failed to see is that they are hyper susceptible to a self enclosed delusional reinforcement system (SEDRS; pronounced Cedars--I just made that up) at the same time. This is perpetuated by isolation and by over dependence on a system that idealizes certain individuals within the community. The result is that all the harm that has been caused as written of on this site, is not only ignored, it is actually no even seen to begin with. By the time one consciously aware of the harmful act that has been seen, the brain has already reinterpreted it as being beneficial. Out in the world, this can be significantly more difficult. We have wives or husbands, bosses and colleagues (who have a wide variety of world views); we read books that challenge our beliefs. All of these are powerful anti SEDRS agents.

Perhaps with the shock of finding themselves so unaware of who Eko is, and then getting such a critical report from Faith Trust the monks of the OBC will look at the very real devastating effects of SEDRS. Of course, another alternative will be that they simply close ranks even more, think of Faith Trust's evaluation as just another worldly organization misunderstanding the True Way, and change as little as possible. Never underestimate the power of SEDRS.

Well I agree but would like to add
If they knew everything noone should hold office
which is itKENSHO
In other words if Eko was not in isolation with behavior which is sort of hinted at by Faith trust,then there are more questions to be answered.I do not know I have not read the report

@Henry

My wife will undoubtedly be pleased when I tell her she is an anti-SEDRS agent. She already knew it, but just didn't have an acronym-laced term for it.

cmpnwtr wrote:

His personal sins and koan are not the issue. It's about behavioral violations of his entrusted duties towards others,

Hey cmpnwtr I agree with the second sentence in the quote above, but the first sentence worries me quite a lot. In my revised view (since carol's post) Eko (theoretically!) caused harm to people through using his position to satisfy his own agenda.

I'm just wondering what you mean by "personal sins"? Is it the oninistic behaviour? Because most people do not consider masturbation to be a "sin." It is not the oninism that was the problem but the context in which it occurred.

One might say: "let he (or she) who has never masturbated cast the first stone."

For me the main problems are deceit
Eko would teach and demand one set of values but live another

I do not think there is nothing wrong in masterbation. it is the context, if you do it infront of other people like on a bus it is a criminal offence,If you do it in front of children it would be a bigger penalty if it is on your own or with a partner no body knows, it is private, and who cares

The context for me is Shasta made a great issue out of celebacy.
Also for me masterbating on a telephone is not the behavior of a spiritual leader, it is the behavior of at best a spiritual person who is a bit sick, who has lost his way, who needs to follow a different path in his life and maybe get married or form a proper relationship

I am not a sex therapist but I think that sex comes through in peculiar ways when one is very delusional

I knew a guy who\'s head was really messed up he had a lot of issues, tried to kill himself for more and more petty reasons,his sexuality became more and more complicated as he became more engrossed in his own morbid situation.I put him on a plane to go somewhere to sort his head out, the plane had to land on route to destination, to take him off as he was running around exposing himself. As I said I am not an expert but sexual energy is very strong and it can pervert and creep out in very peculiar ways

I agree with the various points you made chisanmichaelhughes. I also agree that sexual urges are strong. They have a lot of history behind them: a flow of evolution coming down from Bangiomorpha pubescens (the first known organism to reproduce sexually).

I was just a bit concerned about the word "sin" and wondered whether or not it was being applied to the practice of masturbation itself.

According to wikipedia :

wiki article


Masturbation is mainstream and considered to be a healthy practice.

The view that natural practices are "sins" has been the cause of immense suffering and confusion throughout history.

Of course I can't be sure that the quoted "personal sins" referred to oninism.

@Glorfindel

"personal sins"

I was referencing the statement upstream about "we're all sinners." In other words this is not a personal issue in the sense that masturbation might be considered a personal failing for an abbot, a breaking of vows about sexual behavior, particularly in the context of phone sex. It's about a violation of the responsibilities and boundaries invested in an abbot and priest for privileged communications invested in the role. I don't know how "onanism" crept into this.

I made a mistake when I said
I do not think there is nothing wrong in masterbation. I meant I do not think there is anything wrong in masterbation

I will take out what I wrote as it is going off the topic..I agree again with Bill and what he says about boundrays

That's a relief.

Oninism crept into it in the first post of the original thread concerning Eko's phone calls. It is indeed what we have been talking about. Nothing wrong with that.

There was a fairly large discussion of the ethics of masturbation and I couldn't help relating your comment "his personal sins are not the issue," to that.

I'm glad it was not the case.

I can't help feeling (based on the many posts in the two threads) that there has been, at times, some disgust directed at the oninism itself rather than, more properly (as you point out in your last post), the context in which it occured (ie a spiritual teacher taking advantage of his power over students).

You are right that that is the main issue. But people tend to talk widely around issues. And that is good.

The word 'onanism' derives from the Old Testament name Onan. Onan, a character in the Genesis, "spilled his seed" on the ground.

I don't think anybody here is too excercised about what Mr Little does with his seed.

Thank you, Bill, for writing so clearly about the real issue.
O.

Dear Olga

I think if you scan back to Lise's original post in the first thread concerning "additional information about Michael Little" you will observe that a crucial component of that post concerned M. Little's self stimulation. The ensuing conversation certainly engaged with the relevance and significance of this conjectured activity.

Just updating you

Also:

I'm still very very slightly confused about exactly what was being referred to as "sinful"

The following quote seems to me to be defining a very specific activity as "sinful":

" discussion about someone's private sins between consenting adults of equal power."

What is the "Sin" in this quote referring to?

I can only jump to one conclusion about it and I have to pull the author up on it because I find it slightly disturbing.

cmpnwtr do you think masturbation is a sin?

Glorfindel wrote:
Dear Olga

I think if you scan back to Lise's original post in the first thread concerning "additional information about Michael Little" you will observe that a crucial component of that post concerned M. Little's self stimulation.

Here is the quotation:

I'm told [Meian] said that, during phone calls with some female disciples, the former Abbott would engage in self-stimulation resulting in sexual climax.

Glorfi, you are bright enough to see for yourself the key difference between Lise's post you refered to, and your quotation.

O

Glori et al

If I masturbate and don't have enough umph left to keep my wife happy, I'm not sure if she thinks it's a sin, but I get an admonishment anyway. I then feel guilty. So I guess masturbation is kind of a sin towards my wife. I'm not sure if God/Buddha/Allah/Cosmic Consciousness cares. Depends on if they're on my side or hers. I get the feeling they'd be on hers though, and I'm not sure of the appeals process.

PS I hope this is the final word on masturbation. [Admin delete] Please show restraint and consideration.

OK restraint and consideration my final thought on the subject

Is this indeed The Abbot's answer to the sound of one hand clapping ?

Chisan Chisan

Are there no depths to which you won't sink?

Henry we have abbots masterbating all over America, Sanga arguing about the right or wrong way,people hiding from the truth ,and yet great sincerity, strong beliefs and a desire to meditate,
You show me the sound of one hand clapping

Chisan,

I'd be most pleased to oblige, but as my previous post made clear, I have my wife to answer to. I have in the past explained to her, "But sweetie, it was an accident." But all I've gotten from her as a response to that was the, to me, quite stupid and uninformed, "How the hell can that be an accident." If you can provide me with a more plausible and convincing explanation, I will most certainly oblige your request. As of now, one hand clapping would end up being a slap across the cheek.

PS Am I banned yet?

Hi Henry,

It could have been worse. I was expecting Chisan/Mike to ask if it was DURING
kensho !

Maybe we can all get banned now ?

Stan.

During Kensho I thought it was kensho

So you`re enlightened eh ?

What we are talking about is any action outside of enlightenment

At least we know Kensho`s not enlightenment then !

if it outside of then it is not

What have I started?



Where's Lise when we need her?

Henry in a fast exchange of words are there only certain places ( temples) where one can practice and realize the truth,and by taking on new clothes, rules, regulations is one anywhere nearer practicing the true way?
I believe that the beginners mind is always with us

Well there's one thing in all this I'm pleased about: at least this conversation has descended to the level in which it belongs.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED



PS This was written prior to Chisan's last post.

PPS You've messed me up again Chisan.

Ha ha that one is funnier than Anne's comma and Olga clenched fist

Is mockery the fall back position when empathy proves too difficult an endeavour?
Is the castigation of a fallen fool now being exercised in a [admin delete]?

I hope that such personal research and writings into Eko's failings can be of some comfort and benefit to his victims.

H

Chisan,



Rules, Regulations, and Clothes are can be helpful, but they become death when they ascend to a place they don't belong. To me, beginner's mind is, in the midst of all the knowledge, experience (worldly and spiritual) we've attained, we're essentially quite ignorant and foolish in the grand scheme of things unknown.

Howard,

You mispelled gerk. It should be [banned term].



Since when is empathy and laughter mutually exclusive?

Sorry Howard,

I now know why you spelled gerk.

Second sentence still applies.

Howard I hope so too as I think he messed up big time hid behind his robe and caused alot of pain to alot of people

Chisan,



Rules, Regulations, and Clothes are can be helpful, but they become death when they ascend to a place they don't belong. To me, beginner's mind is, in the midst of all the knowledge, experience (worldly and spiritual) we've attained, we're essentially quite ignorant and foolish in the grand scheme of things unknown


I completely agree Henry

Howard,



While much of this conversation has been serious and helpful to many concerned. It did appear to me to have become to too great a degree: how many sperm can fit on the head of a pin.

A little levity can help the empathy along sometimes. Nothing`s beyond
redemption. Absolutely nothing.

Stan.

Stan,



I'd love to see a humbled Eko with an open mind and heart ready to be redeemed. I'd put my arm around that man in an instant. It would be an honor.

By nothing beyond redemtion Do you mean nothing is beyond being forgiven

I looked up empathy as

The ability to understand and share the feelings of another

Ok I do have a little difficulty there with Eko if I am honest, I do not really want to share his feelings

If you had a full understanding of the sum total of Eko's experiences and feelings, including how he's misperceived things (and the feelings those misperceptions created)'perhaps you'd be able to have more empathy for person he became. That does not exonerate him or make him less
Accountable. From what I've seen most people become twisted from pain they've endured

Chisan

Ok I do have a little difficulty there with Eko if I am honest, I do not really want to share his feelings



Understandable but as if want ever had much to do with a zafu.

Well ok Howard but so what

Henry do you mean sympathy when you say

be able to have more empathy for person he became

sympathy I do not have a problem with
I don't particularly want to share his feelings

If you could experience what he felt or at east understand clearly what that was, could you keep your own center? If you could do that do you think you'd have more ability to help him out of his maze?

Gotta go. Will return.

Chisan
Well ok Howard but so what

I don't think I am getting the gist of this question from a zafu pilot..

I think that not wanting to empathize with (x,y or z) is understandable but is not conditional to want. Sitting, letting go of want with everything else, allows for little separation between self and other.

Empathy is not manufactured, or a product of want or not, so much as just the experience of existence untainted by our own identity.

When we can't do that, well OK, that's just life where we are and everything changes but saying so what, is like saying why meditate?

Sorry if I'm not getting what you are asking!
H

Please note, this thread will be edited at 2:30 PT in order to remove Rule 5 & 18 violations for coarse language, vulgarity.

Lise

Henry
You have experienced through your work unpleasant aspects of family care, so I assume this means you see things when they have gone wrong.I have seen so much too, murderers to thieves. I had to take a razor off someone once after had had half slashed his wrists,bit of a tussel and I spoke to him for some time afterwards. A Catholic Father friend of mine told me I did not handle it right I should have been less sympathetic and more physically dynamic. I do not know what was the right way through, I came to the conclusion, that I would do my best in the situations that I encountered, and I honestly felt that I did not know if I helped anyone, and in some ways it was irrelevant,I do know I tried my best. and did not feel uncentered
Mazes are interesting places, not pleasant, they can take along time to find the exit, and one may choose from a variety of exits. From the great debates of this evening we know there are no mazes nor exits,It sounds glib but my exit is zazen Eko will actually have to work his out,
I do not know him

Howard All I am saying is I do not really want to share Ekos feelings,If we get tangled up in all is one we are part of everything that is fine,as a preference I do not really want to have anything to do with him or his teaching

Chisan
Well ok Howard but so what

I don't think I am getting the gist of this question from fellow zafu pilot..

I think that not wanting to empathize with (x,y or z) is understandable but is not conditional to want. Sitting, letting go of want with everything else, allows for little separation between self and other.

Empathy is not manufactured, or a product of want or not, so much as just the experience of existence untainted by our own identity.

When we can't do that, well OK, that's just life where we are and everything changes but saying so what, is like saying why meditate?

Sharing anothers position or feelings is just understanding/relating to them and is not the same as becoming them. Look around and you might find that some of the people most vehemently against Eko are the same folks that share his tendencies.

The danger with not empathizing is not that we might not be able to help Eko but that we will not see how similar our weaknesses might be to his.



H.

Sorry I do not think my weaknesses are remotely similar to Eko's

Off to bed guys I have an early start