[Buddha-l] Secrecy

[Christopher Fynn]

Joy Vriens wrote:

> Hi Chris,

> You may be right, but it's difficult to see why a person would go 
> through all the trouble and expose herself to unavoidable criticism and 
> rejection. What would be driving her?

Hi Joy

I'm not sure what her motivation was but she told the same tale, but with Bokar 
Rinpoche as the Lama she was involved with, at various times to Gyurme Dorje and 
several others a few years before her book came out. Already that was many years 
after the alleged events took place and no mention of Kalu Rinpoche was made.

When her book was published she had become a radical feminist and had an 
academic position teaching Women's Studies. Perhaps these claims were to 
publicize her book or gain a name or credibility in that field? I don't know. 
Kalu Rinpoche was also a much more widely known lama than BR. (Or maybe since BR 
was still alive her publishers in the UK simply didn't want to be open to a 
libel case and she either had to change the name or leave that part out of the 
book - which would have course made it much less marketable.)

While old acquaintances and others who were still followers of the lamas 
concerned were sure to criticize and reject her, perhaps the story had just the 
opposite effect in her new circle friends and acquaintances? - Perhaps she 
'enhanced' the story a little to make her case?  (Undoubtedly some will 
criticize and reject me as some sort of patriarchal misogynist for even 
suggesting these things).

Even IF June did have a relationship with KR (or for that matter with BR, or 
both) she was a well educated pretty level headed Scotswoman who was as she says 
"in her late twenties" at the time - and she says she agreed to the 
relationship. Years later she's trying to say it was abusive because "I was not 
an equal in our relationship". Dear me, IF this happened, didn't she have an 
inkling of that at the time?  [In fact in the context of a traditional guru
disciple relationship - it's hard to see how anyone could be deluded enough to 
expect "equality".] As far as I could tell she was a perfectly rational adult 
human being at the time and no one at all forced her to buy into a strange 
Tibetan tantric worldview.

When asked "You ended up feeling sexually exploited? Used for personal 
indulgence?" She answers "at the time and for some years afterwards I didn't 
think this"

So now she's got a new world view which leads her to see what she thought of as 
OK at the time as "sexual exploitation".  I wonder, is this new world view any 
less delusional than the previous one?


> http://www.anandainfo.com/tantric_robes.html

Here she says things like "for five hundred years tantric female voices have 
largely disappeared" - OK but Kalu Rinpoche probably did far more than any
other contemporary lamas to rectify that. Who else was opening retreat centers
teaching the six-yogas etc to women? I guess this is one of the things that 
bothers me about her book - In her feminist zeal she ends up discrediting one of 
the few lamas of his generation who did a tremendous amount to enhance the 
status of women in the Dharma. Was this really abuse - and was

If you think the whole thing is a waste of time or a fantasy, OK attack the 
whole thing - but if you believe, as I still do, that there is at heart a lot of 
tremendous value - despite the apparent flaws and encrustations (some of which 
may have made sense in medieval Tibet but not in the contemporary West) - then
you want to see the criticisms aimed more carefully - and at the things and 
individuals which deserve to be targeted.

There are an uncountable number of women in really abusive situations, including 
those who almost daily suffer dangerous physical violence. She only has to look 
around her "enlightened" native Scotland to find plenty of these cases. Perhaps 
most of these cases seem too prosaic for her to write books about - but maybe 
she should first be criticizing her own society before others.

> Apart from that, what I found disturbing were the (karmic) threats and 
> intimidating stories and rumours that she said were used to try and make 
> her stick to secrecy. I myself have witnessed similar threats in a 
> different context.

Whether or not what she claims was said I don't know - they probably wouldn't 
even need to be stated since almost every religion is full of threats of hell & 
damnation if you don't follow the party line. Of course we Tantric Buddhists 
also have our own particular "Vajra Hell" which must be even more profound than 
those of lesser paths.

> I think all this is connected with the atmosphere of secrecy, ambiguity 
> and triumphalism that Tibetan Buddhism 

Before we get on a high horse, is the "secrecy, ambiguity and triumphalism" of 
Tibetan Buddhism any greater than -that of the Catholic Church, the American 
Government, the French Government, the British Government and a hundred other 
institutions? Does it have anywhere near as devastating an effect as that of 
some of these other institutions?

 >(or the hardcore tantric adepts
 > that seemed to have prevailed in the end) surrounds "the only path to
 > the highest realization" in Buddhism with. I personally think that
 > Tibetan Buddhism has a lot to gain by at least making tantric Buddhism
 > one of the many paths to equally "high" realizations.

There are many lamas I know who would accept that there are (at least a few :-) 
) other paths to to "high realizations" (some of them even claim there are 
superior ones).

Funny thing is I don't disagree with many of the things June was trying
to say in her book - although IMO she does rather stretch a lot of
facts and use a lot of very thin evidence to make the case - and goes
overboard with some of her conclusions. I can think of many far
stronger more concrete examples she could have used to make her
case. IMO the book could have been far more valuable and less
contentious if she had done a bit more careful research.

best regards

  - Chris