Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 1

message: Well it looks like someone doesn't like my compromise suggestion, even though you took it literally. Remember I said I'd be tempted. But at least you have a sense of humour, or I assume you do. Lets look for some way of meeting everyone's needs.
*The Guardian article - "The Dark Side of Enlightenment", October 27, 1997
The article is now named and dated in the text, this link is not to the original and I'm unhappy about keeping it as a link. If people really want to look it up, they can.
*FWBO-Files 
This should have a comment to the effect that it is anonymous, contains much that is inaccurate and apocryphal to say the least - this need not be slanted to favour the FWBO at all, but should simply acknowledge the provinance of the informatino. I should also like to see it closely associated with the FWBO response - not that I put much store by it, but you are the one going one about representing point of view.
:FWBO is beyone libel.  Much of S's claim about his exploit in the East is "apocryphal" as well and "inaccurate" depending on your POV. As I said, it is your POV against their.  I have inserted "Anti FWBO site" as an description of the link which I would consider to be an accurate attribution of the nature of the site.  If you want FWBO's response, then I would suggest to include it in "FWBO Sites" where it is rightfully belong. 
Amongst the many claims that are made in this regard are the number of young people who have committed suicide as a result of their association with the FWBO. Since "medical specialists" have apparently testified to this then lets know who they are. Can you see how this is not just another critique as I was trying to point out yesterday? This is something way beyond saying that Sangharakshita doesn't really teach Buddhism at all, to saying that the FWBO kills people. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that a claim like that could do with some substantial backing up before it was made publically. So lets see some sort of acknowledgement of the nature of this document - lets see some sort of analysis of the provinance, the veracity, of this document. Again this need not be a favourable interpretation of the FWBO, just a presentation of the facts. 
:FWBOarticleThe site state that "medical experts have stated that a number of suicides have occurred as a direct result of involvement with the FWBO and its teachings ?!" At least, it appeared to be so in case of Mathew as can be seen in the Guardian article. The site does not claim medical expert testifed that FWBO kills people.  If the site is libel, FWBO can sue the site and shut it down. 
*ex-FWBO Part of ex-cult Resource Centre
Information on cult sites about the FWBO can be traced, I have done this, to Mark Dunlop. Mark has waged his campaign with some vigour, prompting the Guardian article for instance, and is widely networked with cult-watch organisations. These organisations tend to share information, and to accept without critique or any attempt to verify it, anything which is said about an organisation being a cult. They are often associated with fundamentalist Christian groups. So to me this "view point" is problematic. Without any comment on cult-watch organisations, on Mark Dunlop and his madness, and without any discussion of the veracity of the info, then this is just mud slinging. And posting it as a bare link is akin to vandalism. And fortunately it is very easy to deal revert vandalism...
:FWBOarticleFirstly I do not mind adding "By Mark Dunlop" in this link if you can give me something to back it up.  Secondly, you need show me if ex-cult Resource Centre is indeed a part of "Fundamental Christian groups". Anyway, if you can show me that this is indeed a chritian affliated organisation, I'm happy to add this information.   Information such as the failiure of FWBO to condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit with their young students or number of misrepresentation which FWBO made in the past do not need to come from a sigle source.  Lastly, are you willing to also add that Mark Dunlop's psychological problem come from his experience with S and FWBO. "By Mark Dunlop - Former member who has experienced sever psychological problem due to his experience with FWBO and it's founder".  Not only this looks bad on FWBO, I don't fancy going into too much detail just for the sake of detail.
*MANY BODIES, ONE MIND: MOVEMENTS IN BRITISH BUDDHISM by Ken Jones in Buddhist Peace Fellowship
I've re-read this, and although Ken sounds like an arsehole who really doesn't know what he talking about, I am more inclined to agree that he is simply giving his opinion. He's wrong, about the FWBO, but there's no law against that.
*Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru by John Crook in Western Chan Fellowship
*Steven Alan Hassan's Freedom of Mind Centre 
I haven't read this one for a while. I seem to remember it being another ill-informed attack - why don't these people just come along to a centre - god knows there's enough of them! Given that Sangharakshita is no longer the head of the movement, and the so-called "leaders" of the movement have given up most of the administrative posts they held, leaving the FWBO as a distributed, and headless network, I wonder how relevant this critique of Sangharakshita is. Could be of historical interest I suppose... so leave it in with some pointer back to the stuff on the devolution of "authority" in the FWBO - not that anyone in the movement actually acknowledges authority, the faithless bunch of hippies and renegades!
:FWBOarticleFirstly, my POV is that current FWBO is not a full brown cult.  However, the past FWBO can be regarded as one.  Misinformation (S's name, his status of being monk and extent of his training in the East), Rather dubious financial practice (member's dole, housing benefit and volunteer labour connected to it's busniess activities), and most members living in a commune.  But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation. 
*Cult Information Centre 
*Scottish Cult Information & Support
Just forget these ones. This is Mark Dunlop pure and simple. They haven't got a clue, thrive on mudraking and hearsay. Fuckem. Fucking Christian fundamentalists who hate anything that isn't their own brand of gospel. Sigh. Funny old world isn't it? :-)
:I have deleted Scotish Cult Information & Support as the site doesn't appear to be stable.  As of Cult Information Centre, (as I stated in the above) some of problems about FWBO no longer have to come from Mark Dunlop.  If CIC is chritian affiliated, I will mention it. Something like "Chritian affiliated Anti cult site".
So that's my compromise position. Add these links, with some commentary in your own words to show that you understand what you're talking about, and I'll stop deleting the links. Although I can't promise that no one else will do so.  mahābāla 19:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: FWBOarticleIf you want to see an example of New Religious Movement which is slightly ahead of FWBO in transforming itself, checke Hare Krishna (ISKCON).  When the sexual abuse scandal hit the organisation, it took active step to seek out the victims even go as far as placing ad in the newspapers.  It also aligne it's religious practice strictly to Vaishnava lineage.  My indian friend visited one of the main London temple.  What suprise him the most was that majority of lays attending the temple were Asian(i.e. Indian) British. Oh, I made alternations in "Sangha" entry.  you might want to check it out.
I've pruned the external links as many linked to the same information and some just appeared to be links to commercial sites. You might want to look at other controversial religious articles such as Scientology to see their linking practice. My perspective is that this article needs a lot of work. Secretlondon 01:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That doesn't explain why you deleted FWBOFiles.  Also, FWBO people are not as "enthusiastic" as people who support Scietology. There is no requirement to follow example in Scientology which I would consider it to be very restrictive example.  In Soka Gakkai entry for example, Steve Hassan's site is listed.  I also consider Cult Information Centre to be more important than Hassan's site as FWBO is primarly British based organisation.  CIC provide further information upon request.  There is no requirement that the site have to be internet based information sounce.  You may suggest alternative title to "Views Critical To FWBO". FWBOarticle 04:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A compromise

message: Let me just repost a couple of your comments here, because I do believe we are getting somewhere. This is clearly not just another view, this is your view. And yes actually I do believe that this discussion is relevant!
And about your offer for me to perticipate in contributing to the article.  Firstly, my section is a contribution. There is no obligation for anyone to perticipate in other sections. Secondly, I understand that lot of past and present problems of FWBO are discussed within the organisation.  However I highly doubt that you are willing to acknowlege these problems in Wikepedia when even your own organisation is yet to come to term with it. Some of the bad things I read about FWBO is not just S and senior order menbers' sexual exploits.  What about S's name falsely translated as "Protector of Sangha", him pretending to be a monk in front of indians, hyping his orthodox buddhist training in the east when he didn't really get anywhere.  What about allegation about S's idea that homosexual relationship to be superior to hetorosexual one, or about alleged misoginy against female members, and all those polemic S and FWBO directed against other Buddhist groups (and Chritianity). And are you willing to discuss the ongoing failiure of FWBO's to publically condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit not to mention it's failure to name names. FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about many of these things. S's name I think is a very minor point. I think it can be taken to mean "protector of the Sangha", but so far as I'm aware no one has ever insisted on that, and it's primary meaning is "protected *by* the Sangha". But these compound Sanskrit names are open to interpretation. S is a poet, so expect a little poetry from time to time.
As for S's retaining his identity as a monk in India, yep that is a problematic issue. It was a deliberate deception. I think it was plain wrong to do so, but then again I do have some sympathy with why he might have chosen such a deception. Anything I say is going to sound like a rationalisation I suppose. 
The homo/hetero thing is a bit of a non issue. Actually S says that the highest form of sexuality is celebacy. I'm not even sure it was him that suggested that homo was superior, although there were a number of people who advanced the idea. In any case anyone making such a clain these days would be laughed of the stage. There are a lot of gay men in the FWBO - traditional Buddhism is a bit anti, viz the Dalai Lama's comments a few years back. And yep there was some mysogeny as well. Lots of women felt marginalised, some still do, although record numbers are joining the order at present, so something must be going right.
I don't think anyone is willing to "denounce" Sangharakshita because they don't see him as having acted in a way that requires such a drastic step. Most of the people I know have an abiding gratitude to the old man. It's not a black and white issue, and I can see that you might see it as black. I don't necessarily see it as white, but against black I suppose I look pretty pale.
So yes there are problems. But these are things that can be addressed in the article. Gotta dash at the mo, but will be back. I think there's another paragraph in what you wrote yesterday which is the germ of a new addition to the article - after that it will make more sense to link to a couple of cult-watch sites. Regards mahābāla 08:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, firstly, I'm not interested in debating these issue.  Almost everything which can be said are in Newsgroup. And I don't really expect FWBO to be capable to condem S or name names of senior members. Just telling you that the public may have different POV from you.  And your article is likely to alarm people about FWBO than promote it because your attitude toward these issues is apparent in the article.  Anyone with access to an internet (i.e. people who read Wikipedia) can find FWBOfile whether it is up here or not. FWBOarticle 09:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress