Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 4

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Triratna Buddhist Community. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

FWBO Post criticism

It seems to me that there is insufficient balance regarding FWBO. The FWBOsexgate is historical and still worthy of being given balanced treatment. All positions are just that, positions and I think it is appropriate that there is a breadth of positions represented. Opinions may be facts or people may seek to make their opinions facts. The lack of balance is not only unfair but it undermines the validity of the Wikipedia project. This article is evidence of wikipedia as manifesto and I would respectfully request that contributors seek to refute opposing positions rather than delete them. Dont believe everything you think folks! AntaineNZ (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an attempt by an FWBO supporter to portray the problems at the FWBO as history rather than current. The whole issue remains wide open and to refer to the FWBO 'post criticism' is to infer that the situation no longer exists and things have changed, whereas many would argue that things have not .Of those who have exited the Order of recent, it is certain that the Order's unwillingess to address the question of Sangharakshita'a sexual behaviour figured high on their list of problems. In brief, since the criticism has not stopped, why, for anything other than politically motivated PR, talk of the FWBO post-criticism; they are still in it up to their necks All the best, --Kt66 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that about three people have contributed to this section, and that it has stayed up for so long already, leads me to believe that there are many people who consider the major problems to indeed be history. While the FWBO still has certain aspects that leave people unsatisfied, they are different to the problems experienced in the 1980s. It hurts me that people permanently brand the FWBO as a mysogynistic homoerotic cult because of events that happened over twenty years ago, because I want people to recognise my spiritual practice and that of my peers for what it really is. If you have sources that detail the current issues concerning the fwbo then please provide details and we can get working on a more up-to-date addition to the criticism section. But the post-criticism section is important because things have changed a lot, and because Sangharakshita has in fact discussed the sex issues in an interview.

I also consider it unhelpful to complain about fwbo supporters editing the article. If supporters to do not help to edit this article it will not reach NPOV - it will simply swing to the other end of POV to how it was when it was created. Ideally there would be someone out there who is actually neutral who could help us out. But it doesn't look like that's the case. So the only way forward is for us to work together and not judge each other. I appreciate criticism of the fwbo as it gives me the opportunity to respond in a calm, kind manner. Please appreciate my support of the fwbo as a conscious decision to practice in a way that just happens to be different to you. Rupa zero 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Many controversial articles are written largely by critics and supporters of each particular issue. It isn't a problem as long as the neutrality and verifiability criterias are adhered to. The dispute of this article started several years ago when I added the link to FWBO files in "External Link" section, which is usually exempt from verifiability criteria. I had to fight tooth and nail for external links critical to FWBO. I thought the such behaviour was of fanboy (or cult?). I personally think that it is pointless to argue what is or isn't the authentic Buddhism. However, many traditionalist do raise this issue and these views should be part of this article as long as they are cited in verifiable source. Many article grow in size due to the contribution from both sides. Readers can make informed decision as long as attribution is clear and verifiable. You state in your page that you are planing to add proper citation over the summer. I'm happy to wait. Vapour

Thanks for such an amicable reply. I'm filled with hope that we can sort this out eventually. I agree that it's important that people are able to make an informed decision, and if that means the article has to be long and detailed then it's not a problem. However, I do think that eventually we will have to rearrange the article so that it is somehow easier to digest. But it's not urgent. Rupa zero 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is impossible for either of the two camps in this to write objectively and the tendency to edit out pro and anti statements is a clear sign of a lack of objectivity on both sides.To suggest that swinging from one extreme to another will eventually result in neutrality is enaive to say the least. It is not appropriate IMO to refer to the 2005 interview because it is not verifiable until it can be seen; why not post it on the web?? Again reference to Vishvapani's article 'Growing Pains' is pointless-it is bound to have an element of bias within it because of the position he holds. It cannot therefore possibly be objective. I think this section ought to be left out-even the title 'Post Criticism' is subtle propaganda. [[User:Mahblahblah] 21:03 16 June 2007

You have a good point here. It is going to be difficult to reach neutrality. But we have to keep trying. If the articles on Israel can have no neutrality banner then so can something as tiny and insignificant as the FWBO. Let's get rid of the 'Post criticism' section for now as it's causing too much trouble. I can add a section later that serves the same purpose while being actually academically sourced by third parties. And I object to your use of the term, 'propaganda,' it's kind of hurtful since that section was added by normal people, not spin artists. Rupa zero 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda: 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view'.OED-Sounds about right!'Post criticism' is subtly misleading information used to promote a point of view. Sorry if it offends! 'Political'-'acting in the interests of status '.OED 'Post criticism' can be said to be attempting to do just that!I guess I am just not eloquent enough! No intent to offend, only to point out undertones.Mahablahblah 10:55 pm 19 June 2007

I have scholarly, third-party sources that confirm that there has been some form of reaction to the criticism, albeit insufficient to address the underlying issues that bring so much hate. When I've finished the reading I'm working on and I'm ready to add a section on the matter that uses information only from those sources, what subheading would you prefer? 'Post' merely means after. Rupa zero 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 'after' and, as evidenced from this page, criticism goes on NOW so it can't be referred to as 'post criticism'. I see nothing wrong with The FWBO Today.'Hate'? Woah there; don't believe everything you are told. Some of the people involved in the 'outing' of the FWBO are motivated by concern for others and the future of Buddhism. When, in Dharamsala in the early 90's, the Dalai Lama advised those who were concerned about gurus abusing their disciples to 'name names in newspapers' (Kulananda was present), do you really think he was motivated by 'hate'?? No, I think many Buddhists are concerned about the FWBO because they consider them to be a threat to individuals and indeed to the existence of genuine Buddhism-I remember somewhere their being compared to the cuckoo. I don't know if your up on nature but the cuckoo produces eggs that are exact replicas of whatever bird whose nest it lays its eggs in and as soon as it breaks out of the egg, the cuckoo chick destroys all the other eggs (or something like that!)See the analogy? So, concern for the well being of individuals and Buddhism seems to be a big factor here. Read the introduction to the FWBO Files;it isn't all lies, after all, is it? Maybe it would be good for you to talk to some people from outside the Order!I wonder, do you talk to anyone in Buddhism, outside the Order? (Please,not the NKT!!!)Some people are genuinely concerned about the effect of the FWBO's approach will have on the future of Buddhism and they care about people; that's not hate!! I, for instance, feel concern for one so obviously young as yourself, who it seems, has only ever encountered Buddhism through the Order's eyes and yet seem so keen to vehemently defend them. What does that say about the effect your association has had on your facility to keep an open mind? Mahablahblah 7:36 June 23 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.21.233 (talk • contribs) 19:36, June 23, 2007 (UTC).

Hi there 80.2.21.233. Could you please sign your comments properly? Are you using this discussion page to try to convince someone they are on the wrong spiritual track? Andkaha^(talk) 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OOOOH! Are you using this discussion page to try to convince someone they are on the right spiritual track? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.21.233 (talk • contribs) 17:35, June 24, 2007 (UTC).

Please sign properly. And to answer your question, no why would I? The purpose of this discussion page is to discuss the contents of the article. Andkaha^(talk) 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly sign things properly when I am fluent in the medium Andreas. Perhaps you can direct me since you write so frequently elsewhere, I am sure you know the ropes?

Signing of comments on talk pages on the Wikipedia is described in the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline document. In short, use four consecutive tildes ('~'). Also, I would recommend that you create a proper Wikipedia user identity for yourself instead of writing anonymously, see Help:Logging in. This would enable me to write comments like these on you user talk page instead of here, which is not really the right place for them. I also believe it is proper manners to use Wiki user names, not real names, when addressing others. Andkaha^(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To address your comment, I raised the issue of whether your younger Cambridge Order colleague had any experience of Buddhism, outside the FWBO (or even FWBO Cambridge?), because it seems to me that she frequently falls prey to biased wording without intending to do so. 'Approach' becomes 'innovation', for example.You are probably aware that any good academic piece should not be written from an 'insider' viewpoint.

I have no order colleagues in Cambridge or elsewhere — I am not an WBO order member. If you read RZ's talk page (good reading), you'll see she is involved with other Buddhists outside of FWBO, and that she's probably more of a level-headed academic than I ever was. Andkaha^(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My wish is to either neutralize the content of the page or ask Wiki to take it down. The page is filled with so much propaganda from both camps so as to render it a million miles from objective.At times it seems more like publicity for the FWBO than objective analysis and at other times it is little better than sniping at the Order.Once again, 'Last man standing wins' is the order of the day. Mahablahblah User:80.2.21.233|80.2.21.233] 19:53 24 June 2007

At the moment, I agree with what you are saying here. Andkaha^(talk) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh BTW, 'I have no order colleagues in Cambridge or elsewhere — I am not an WBO order member' Are you saying you do not know RZ? Haven't you encountered her at CUBS/CBS??? Either way, lets get this page down and stop all this nonsense, don't you think? (80.2.21.233 12:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Mahablahblah User:80.2.21.233|80.2.21.233

Dearest 80.2.21.233, AFAIK RZ is no order member either. Maybe I misunderstood your notion of "colleague"? Indeed, maybe my knowledge of English isn't really up to scratch? We don't work together, if that's what you mean... And do see to getting yourself a proper Wiki user name. Andkaha^(talk) 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Love and peace man!I think you'll find RZ practices with the FWBO-see her self-descrition on her user page'She is a first year student of Japanese Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge and a practising buddhist in the FWBO.'(80.2.21.233 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)}MBB

Oh my, I had no idea people had been talking about me. I'm not an order member. I'm not narrow minded either. As I explicitly say on my userpage, I have come to my own conclusion that the fwbo in which I practice does not resemble the criticism levelled against it. In the words of Russell Brand, 'I likes it.' But I think about this criticism very often. I talk about it regularly and openly with OMs and other mitras. I have just finished reading scholarly sources that look intensely at the fwbo and give criticism where criticism is due. If you think that I am burying my head in the sand, or worse, that I have been brainwashed, you are dead wrong. And I am hurt that if you had such concerns about my welfare, you did not approach me on my usertalk page about them and instead discussed it here. And I would never call well placed, balanced criticism hatred. Hysterical scaremongering is something I find hateful, but explaining where I see the line to be would take a long time. As for Andkaha, I do not know him as far as I am aware, though I would like to thank him for the compliment and the defense. Mahablahblah, I agree with a lot of what you've said and I look forward to working with you. I agree that this article is getting bogged down by praise and blame. Something more neutral is possible - I've read neutral accounts myself four or five times over. Rupa zero 21:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

possibly scholarly sources for FWBO

David N. Kay Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, pages 10,11,200 (Bell's study); 96,125,139,205,213-214, allegations of sexual abuse page 4; essentialist approach 20,22; financial mechanisms 12; groups and number of members 25; Mellor's study; 9,10,13,19,11,141; similarities with OBC 204; ISBN 0415297656, Routledge; ISBN 0415297656
"Researching New Religious Movements: responses and redefinitions" by Elisabeth Arweck, pages 64, 124; ISBN 041527754X, Routledge
"Action Dharma: New Studies in Engaged Buddhism" Charles S. Prebish, Damien Keown; pages 17, 231; ISBN 0700715932; Routledge
"New religious movements", Jamie Cresswell, Bryan R. Wilson; pages 144,153,156; ISBN 0415200490; Routledge
"The New Evangelists: Recruitment Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements", Peter Clarke, King's College (University of London). Department for the History and Philosophy of Religion; ISBN 0905788605
"New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World", Peter Bernard Clarke; pages 63-64, 11, 87, 89; ISBN 0415257484
Bluck, Robert (2006). British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development. RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-39515-1 (the most actual research which in general includes all other sources available; sometimes the author weights the statements of the followers more than the critics...)
Cozort, Daniel (2003). The Making of Western Lama in "Buddhism in the Modern World", ISBN 0-19-514698-0

with google-book-search you can almost get the pages without buying those expensive but well researched books.

Online Research Articles you'll find here

maybe you'll find also here: http://www.buddhistethics.org/search.html --Kt66 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm finding the whole criticism section a bit garbled and difficult to make sense of. It seems to conflate criticism of the order structure with issues of personal behaviour by Sangharakshita and a doctrinal issue over sexual relationships.

Shouldn't the personal behaviour issues be in the article on Sangharakshita, rather than here?

Is there nothing more recent than the early 90's with respect to power relationships, the Grunaid article appears to have been reflective back, rather than a discussion of a current issue?

The doctrinal issue is very confused. As I read it, in the article, a paper was presented to the conference but nothing was taken forward from that paper in the outcomes of the conference itself. I don't actually see whether this is a criticism of the order or the individual who wrote the paper?

TIA

ALR 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think lots of people wish to make that point, in wikipedia and outside of it. That's the most painful thing about the criticism, I find: that a lot the focus of the criticism dates back at least ten years, usually a lot more than that, and describes a situation that just doesn't exist today. Buddhism teaches impermanence yet people talk as if the fwbo was static. Some people have assumptions that the fwbo is a heirarchical organisation with Sangharakshita as the big boss, and that therefore his actions are the actions of the whole movement. My point here is that it's not the article that's garbled. It's the criticism itself which is garbled. I therefore can't see the criticism section being amended either to reflect present circumstances or to reflect the reality that the sex and power issues at hand have changed dramatically. That would be original research, and would not reflect the nature of criticism against the fwbo. Rupa zero 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know FWBO changed into a healthy group. Friends of the Theravada order in England told it to me. Scientific sources may reflect that and the article should be balanced in all ways. So when there is a FWBO site which reflects the past critisism and the actions FWBO has taken from it, it can also be added. I added a lot of scientific sources above and they will contain balanced material for the article. It would be very nice to have a proper and fair article. --Kt66 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for that list - if no-one has started working through it yet I may well use my summer to do so. I would prefer it if someone not involved in the fwbo read through the stuff, because I'm going to find it hard to detach myself enough to write an encyclopedic article. I'm merely willing to step in if I'm needed. Rupa zero 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done it now. Rupa zero 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic Sources for quotations about the FWBO

The following is a bibliography of published and unpublished writings which mention the FWBO, which should help to provide some substance to this article. I hope everyone finds it useful. mahaabaala 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrett D. V. (2001) The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions, Cassell, 307-310.
Batchelor S. (1993) The Awakening of the West, HarperCollins, London.
Baumann M (1996) ‘Buddhist Dissemination in the West: Phases, Orders and Integrative Buddhism’, Day Internacionales Asienforum 27/ 3-4: 345-62.
(1998) ‘Working in the Right Spirit: The Application of Buddhist Right Livelihood in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order,’ The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 5.
(2000) ‘Work as Dharma Practice: Right Livelihood Cooperatives in the FWBO,’ in Queen CS (Ed.) Engaged Buddhism in the West, Wisdom Publications, pp. 372-93.
(2002) ‘Buddhism in Europe: Past, Present, Prospects.” In Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, edited by M. Baumann and C. Prebish, 85-105. London: University of California Press.
Bell S. (1996) ‘Change and Identity in the Western Buddhist Order,’ Scottish, Journal of Religious Studies vol. XVII no 2, pp.87-107.
(1997) Review of Extending the Hand of Friendship, The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, March 1997.
(2002) ‘Scandals in Emerging Western Buddhism’ in Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, edited by M. Baumann and C. Prebish, 230-242. London: University of California Press.
Bluck, R. (2006) British Buddhism: Teachings, Practices and Developments, Routledge, Oxford, 2006.
Chen C.M. (ed. Khantipalo) (1967) Buddhist Meditation Systematic and Practical, Free Distribution.
Clarke P. (2005) Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, London, 2005.
Coleman J.W. (2001) ‘The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition,’ OUP, Oxford,
Conze E. (1979) Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic, Samizdat Publishing Co.
Cush D. (1996) ‘British Buddhism and the New Age’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 11(2):195-208
Ganguly D. ‘Yet Another English ‘Gift’: The Role of English Bhikkhus in Indian Dalit Buddhist Conversions (1970-2000)’ Paper for the 15 Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia Conference, 2004, http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2004/Ganguly-D-ASAA2004.pdf
Harris E. (1998) What Buddhists Believe, Oneworld, Oxford.
Harvey P. (1990) An Introduction to Buddhism, CUP, Cambridge.
Henry P. (2006) ‘The Sociological Implications for Contemporary Buddhism in the United Kingdom: Socially Engaged Buddhism, a Case Study,’ Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Volume 13, 2006
Humphreys C. (1978) Both Sides of the Circle, Allen & Unwin, London.
Inaba K. (2005) Altruism in New Religious Movements: The Jesus Army and the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in Britain, University Education Press.
Kulananda (1992) 'Protestant Buddhism' [A Response to Philip Mellor], Religion 22
Mellor P. ‘Protestant Buddhism? The Cultural Translation of Buddhism in England,’ Religion, 21(1): 73-93.
‘The FWBO and Tradition: a Reply to Kulananda, Religion, 22, 104-107.
Olle H. (2001) ‘The Lotus in the West,’ Sheffield Online Papers in Social Research, No 4, July 2001, http://www.shef.ac.uk/socstudies/Shop/olle.pdf
Ratnaprabha (1987) ‘A Re-emergence of Buddhism: the case of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order', in Clarke P, (ed.) The New Evangelists,:Recruitment and Aims of New Religious Movements, London, Ethnographica, 57-75.
Rawlinson A. (1997) The Book of Enlightened Masters, Open Court, Chicago.
Smith, S. (2003) “Widening the Circle: Communities of Color and Western Buddhist Convert Sanghas.” In Action Dharma: New Studies in Engaged Buddhism, edited by C. Queen, C. Prebish and D. Keown, 220-236. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Snelling J. (1987) The Buddhist Handbook, Rider, London.
Sponberg A. (1996) Engaged Buddhism, Ed. Queen C. and King S. SUNY, New York.

Unpublished Papers

Bell S. (1991) ‘Buddhism in Britain - Development and Adaptation,’ doctoral thesis, University of Durham.
Clarke P, ‘New Religions in Britain and Western Europe: In Decline?’ paper presented at day seminar on the methods and aims of evangelization in contemporary society with special references to New Religious Movements, Kings College, London, June 14th 1985.
McAra S, ‘The Land of the Stupa and the Sacred Puriri: Creating Buddhism in the Tararu Valley, New Zealand,’ MA Thesis University of Auckland. [about to be published by Uni of Hawaii Press]
Scott D, ‘Modern British Buddhism: Patterns and Directions, seminar paper to The Buddhist Forum,’ SOAS.
(1996) The Friends of The Western Buddhist Order: British Buddhism in Transition?,

Consistent Standards?

Editor Andkaha recently (5 June 2007) deleted a paragraph from the article, saying that it was a 'Highly charged addition without cited source'. While 'Highly charged' may be Andkaha's personal opinion, they are quite right to say the paragraph lacked a cited source (and therefore failed to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion).

It was, of course, my personal opinion. The text also contained four unsourced statements and rather than adding these to the article's other unsourced material, I opted for deleting the whole edit. Andkaha^(talk) 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

However, most of the existing article also lacks a cited source. As far as I can see, the major part of the article (up to the start of the Criticism section) cites no reliable sources of information about the FWBO at all. It seems to be a promotional article or advert for the FWBO, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

To me, it seems like a flame fest between supporters of two teams. Andkaha^(talk) 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be that editors will come forward to rewrite the sections which lack a cited source. Otherwise, the article must be a candidate for deletion, or at least for substantial pruning. EmmDee 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I'm making it a summer project to read academic works on the topic and get everything sourced. After it's sourced, let's talk about whether it is promotional in tone. Rupa zero 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I've done it. Rupa zero 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted

Someone anonymous made a rather impassioned edit that made the article even less neutral. Also, it was unsourced, and phrases such as, "Sangharakshita is still head of the order in anything but name, shows how far the fwbo has learned from the past," seems to be either an opinion or original research.

The same could be said of the section to which the latest edit was added. I will admit responsibility for at least half of that section and admit to its failings. If people want, we could get rid for now.

As a side note, I'm about halfway through the necessary reading for adding citations to this article. In my reading I have come across some insightful and neutral analysis of how far the fwbo has learned from the past. After I've added the necessary citations, would it be okay for me to add some notes on this analysis? It's far more valuable than the existing post-criticism section. Rupa zero 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the first section was so adverty, it had to go. It really is time to stop referring to the FWBO 'post criticism'. In my experience, the criticism is ongoing and the title is a not very subtle way of an OM/sympathizer trying to put distance between the Order and its past. So, leave it out, unless you can prove that everyone in the Buddhist and cult awareness world have changed their opinions. Mahablahblah80.2.21.233 17:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

EmmDee and criticism at top

EmmDee added a couple of well chewed paragraphs of criticism at the top of the article this evening. I think they should be moved into the criticism section, if they are to be kept at all (they have been on the page before but have obviously been deleted over time). The Stephen Batchelor quote is BTW totally out of date as far as I'm aware (there's no "rigid hierarchy"). ... and I can do some questioning of the "leader" if you wish :-) I find myself doing it quite often (but maybe I don't count as I'm not a member of the WBO?). Also, the 'Student Direct' quote also seems to be outdated by now. The FWBO do not "recruit" people (I'm not sure this has ever happened apart from for office positions at centres etc.), and people looking to becoming mitras are made aware of the problems that the FWBO has been going through before they are allowed to become mitras. It is a process entirely driven by the mitra-wannabe, not by the FWBO, and within it, questioning is certainly encouraged. Mitras are, and has always been (AFAIK), free to leave or disassociate themselves from the FWBO at any time (see e.g. [1]). Andkaha^(talk) 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the age of a quote doesn't make it irrelevant. If so, why refer to scripture? Come on; let's get this page down so we can all stop getting sidetracked with polemic about this passing show and get on with resting in mindspace??If we don't, this tit for tat stuff can go on forever. I admit, I am biased against the Order-Why not admit you are biased in favour-you seem determined to portray yourself as neutral but I am afraid the content of your writing betrays your position as an apologist. Since nobody who writes this stuff has a NPOV, whats the point? We will always be trapped in this duality.Aren't we supposed to be going beyond such stuff?Or do you like conflict?(80.2.21.233 19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)) MBlabla

I just noticed - the Bluck thing is wrong. The 1400 members thing is only the wbo, not the fwbo. Rupa zero 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) SO HOW MANY FWBO MEMBERS ARE THERE IN UK?

The question is further complicated by the fact that some people say that the FWBO doesn't have members as such, its just an informal association of individuals. From a legal point of view, apparently you have to be a member of the WBO before you can be a member of the FWBO [2], though not all WBO members are also FWBO members. EmmDee 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was interesting. I think the point of that was a legal thing to do with charity status, rather than counting members to compare to other buddhist movements. You're right, it's far too complicated. Can we forget about membership figures, it doesn't seem to be that important anyway. Rupa zero 10:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is incorrect... It is true that there are 1400 members of the Order, roughly, worldwide, but there are many more thousands of people worldwide who come along to centres and who would consider themselves 'FWBO Buddhists' (though that term isn't used). The quote 'You can�t be a member of the FWBO in a legal sense unless you are a Buddhist, ie unless you are a member of the Order' is been taken, as usual, out of context by the fwbo-files and Mark Dunlop (EmmDee = MD)...

So I've taken out the quote from referring to Bluck's analysis. You simply have to look at any FWBO centre to see it's patently not true. The London Buddhist Centre alone, for instance, probably has several hundred people attending it. I don't have a source to hand for this, but according to a member of the European Buddhist Union I was chatting to, the largest Buddhist organisations in the UK currently are (in order of size) the NKT, SGI, and the FWBO.

Please take anything from EmmDee, Mahablahblah, and 80.2.21.233 with a pinch of salt!!! This is the person behind the FWBO-files, and will be about as non-NPOV as they come! Vajrashura 89.234.88.137 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the number of members thing. On Wikipedia we try to assume good faith of everyone - unless it's clear that someone is a serial vandal, it's important to treat everyone with the assumption that they are here to make Wikipedia the highest quality possible. Sometimes it's difficult to maintain this assumption in issues like this where opinion is polarised - it can be easy to believe that someone with the opposite opinion to you must be here to spread propaganda of some sort. In reality, everyone here simply wants the article to be neutral, and although we all have a different vision of what that might mean, we have to slowly but surely work towards a solution that makes everyone happy to some degree.

So there's a couple of points I want to highlight here. First, we have to be very careful what we use as a source for this article. Bluck's analysis of the number of members is indeed flawed, but it is sufficient to point out why it is flawed. Personal experience of the FWBO (eg 'just go to a Buddhist Centre') won't suffice as evidence when justifying a position put forward in this article. Second, I don't know whether EmmDee is Mark Dunlop, but even if (s)he were I wouldn't let it affect my interactions with him/her on this tak page. His/her contribution to the discussion has often been highly valuable, and I have no reason to believe (s)he is here to deceive wikipedia readers. The same goes for Mahablahblah and 80.2.21.233, who I think might be the same person, I'm not sure. Although EmmDee and Mahablahblah have a strong opinions against the FWBO, they seem to be willing to balance this opinion with other people's points of view, and to make this article well-sourced and accurate. I try my best to offer them the same courtesy - even though I am pro-FWBO, I try to stick to the facts and allow their perspective to be given the space it needs, when it can be sourced to a third-party.

Thirdly, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will consider helping us edit this article - a few people seem to have given up and left, so any extra help debating future changes to the article would be much appreciated. Read as much of the talk page as you like, and tell us what you think! Rupa zero 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what's next?

I have added citations to most of the 'citation needed' points. There are three in the criticism section that I cannot cite - in fact, one uncited statement, that criticism has been mostly focused on Bhante and other senior order members, is demonstrably untrue. If more statements in the article need to be cited then either let me know personally or add the 'citation needed,' thingymabob and I'll get right on it.

I would like to get on with rearranging this article so that it makes sense. I don't want to seem aggressive, but I thought I should put my cards on the table and say how exactly I think this article needs to be changed;

All criticism should be reserved for the criticism section, for purely stylistic reasons. This includes doctrinal criticism, such as the issue of whether all buddhist schools have core things to be shared between them. This would be consistent with articles on the fwbo in specialist encyclopedias such as the 'encyclopedia of new religious movements,' and 'The encyclopdia of new religions.'
The first half has to be merely descriptive. The tone has previously been noticeably promotional. Basically, the bit before criticism should be neither positive nor negative. No assessment should be attempted in this section whatsoever.
There are a few sections of the bit of the article before criticism that are unnecessary, such as the chronology, and the section on diversity.
Other sections should be combined, such as activities and practice, or 'The FWBO after S' and 'The FWBO today.'
The criticism section should have different subheadings if it is to include more fundamental doctrinal points. In other articles that I have read, criticism is often split into sexuality, authority, mysogyny, and the doctrinal stuff.

Please mention any other needs that you think should be met by further edits to this article. Please argue with me about what I have written above. I am more than willing to do the ground work for this and have it picked apart by you guys until we're all equally happy - or equally disappointed, if that's what it takes. Rupa zero 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Is it necessary to have a seperate criticism section? If it is necessary for some reason, shouldn't the other section be titled 'non-critical', or whatever the opposite of criticism is? Flattery section?

ISTM that, in the case of a controversial topic like the FWBO, the article should attempt to be balanced and NPOV overall, with pro and anti pov's fairly evenly spread through the article. Banishing criticism to a section towards the end doesn't really help to acheive this. Particularly with the section that Rupa Zero moved, which questions whether the FWBO is a bona-fide Buddhist organisation, which is a fairly fundamental question in relation to this article, and so should be mentioned fairly early on, so that readers are informed what the issues are.

Confining criticisms to a seperate criticism section might be made to work, if the 'the bit before criticism' was a lot shorter (currently its about 2/3 of the article's text), and was genuinely neutral and non-promotional in tone, which it isn't at present. Also, there is little point in effectively duplicating material which can fairly easily be found on the FWBO's own website, a balanced selection of reliable third-party sources is what is needed.

If the introductory bit before criticism was much more concise and balanced, then I might be persuaded of the merits of confining criticism to the criticism section. Or alternatively, if there was a concise, neutral introduction and then a new 'controversy' section, that might be a workable way of structuring the material.

But as the article stands at present, I strongly disagree that 'All criticism should be reserved for the criticism section', unless and until the rest of the article meets the standards of impartiality (and conciseness?) that I imagine the specialist encyclopedias that RZ mentions would display. EmmDee 13:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other changes I described would make the first section shorter, and I agree with you that the tone is too positive. I guarantee you that if I do the edit, the first section will be a lot shorter. I think we can phrase things so that they allude to criticisms that will later be described in more detail. For example, one source I read says that the fwbo 'uses buddist teachings,' which I presume would be more to your taste than, 'Is a buddhist school.' I know you don't want it to sound too rosy by leaving criticism until later, but I really think that you have to describe what the fwbo is before you analyse its merits. Rupa zero 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the first section reads like, 'The fwbo says this, but...' it will overall sound very negative. Similarly, I don't think we should keep the 'yes but's in the criticism section. I think each half needs to stand on its own without being undermined by the other side. I've looked around at other controversial topics on wikipedia, and the description first, criticism later form stands with those. For example, the idf, nkt, and even scientology. Rupa zero 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out 'Children of God' if you think you've got it bad! Or what about 'Heaven's Gate'? and NLP? Or Opus Dei? All mention the word 'cult' in the first section-at least your only a NRM

I checked out all of those. Most of them have, 'need to be rewritten' banners or have neutrality banners. Opus Dei doesn't mention cult until the last paragraph of the introduction, and then it's brief and tidy. Rupa zero 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The FWBO article has banners too; the difference is it doesn't mention the word 'cult'. Big hug! Perhaps the definition of New Religious Movement is disturbing? Talk to Bluck!...Again! Peace sister Zoya

Looking at the Scientology article for example, yes it does follow the 'description first, criticism later' form, but it also includes a brief description of the criticism in the intro section (in the 4 short paragraphs before the Contents panel): 'Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception ... etc.' And the description/criticism sections are of about equal length

Also, there is a seperate Scientology controversy article, with a shortish 'COS's replies to its critics' [3] at the end. Not sure if we want to follow that part of the format as well

You say 'you have to describe what the fwbo is before you analyse its merits.' [0r otherwise]. Well yes, but that's easier said than done, since opinions on what the fwbo is apparently vary from: 'a broad-based, eclectic Dharma community that engages with teachings from the whole Buddhist tradition' through to 'an abusive, questionably Buddhist cult' [4], which is quite a wide spread. So I think you have to describe both what the FWBO is, and what the criticism is, before going on to analyse the merits of the respective positions.

So I think that the Scientology-type article format, of a shortish (4 para or so) neutral introduction, followed by a genuinely 'merely descriptive', non-promotional, neither positive nor negative, description of the FWBO, and then by a similar non-promotional description of the criticisms, could work, if all the descriptions were properly sourced (and preferably in the form of direct quotes rather than possibly imprecise precis).

The example you quote: 'one source I read says that the fwbo 'uses buddist teachings,' which I presume would be more to your taste than, 'Is a buddhist school.' - perhaps illustrates the benefit of direct quotes rather than precis. Reliable (media or academic) sources tend to choose their words very carefully, knowing their reputations may be at stake. 'uses buddhist teachings' is more objective and neutral than 'Is a buddhist school'. (I don't think its just a question of my personal taste btw.)

Maybe you could post your proposed new neutral text (possibly in sections) here on the talk page first, so it can be discussed by other editors, before being put on the article page. It would be good to avoid the 'flame fest between supporters of two teams' (as Andkaha described it). EmmDee 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you - sorry for not being more clear, I thought a neutral introduction would be a given as an introduction should summarise the whole article. New article written below - I haven't added the source references in as I don't think the ref function will work on a talk page. Facts that I can source have an asterisk beside them. All of the sources are third-party scholarly sources - if the only source available is first party I consider the statement unsourced but true (ie FWBO material or anti-cult material eg FWBO files, anti-cult.org etc). Some statements are more than one sentence long.

edit: The vast majority of what is written in this new proposed article is the exact same terminology as another source - eg 'organisational and authoritative focal point' is the exact same words as the source from which it came. Paraphrasing would of course be subjective to the needs of the writer. I'm not sure whether it's against the rules that I haven't put quotation marks around everything - I think it would make the article look messy to do so. Rupa zero 10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Article

see /Proposed

anonymous person's comments

The anonymous person made comments on the proposed new article in amongst the article itself - this was confusing and difficult to read, so I've written down every point he made and list them below:

Changes proposed by anonymous

"controversial New Religious Movement (link)(See criticism section)"
"The FWBO is widely noted for its radicalism" is propaganda
Abuse, misogyny etc should be mentioned in the intro
Considered to be a cult can be sourced at cult information website
'Combined' order and 'neither monastic nor lay' are mutually exclusive terms
Change, 'some orthodox traditions,' to, 'orthodox mahayana'
"It is a network of friendships,' specify,' the wbo is a network of friendships.'
Omit methods of self-improvement.
Specify that Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony for ordination, specify that there is a heirarchy despite there being no higher ordinations, put ordination in inverted commas.
doubts about lack of special status - can an non-OM be a centre chair?
Sadhanas should not be referred to as sadhana-this is an attempt to legitimize an invented practice by giving it an Asian language name-the 'sadhana's of the FWBO did not exist in Asia
'Positive emotion,' isn't emotion a klesha or defilement
specify who it is that approches meditation practises from a strong base of integration and positivity
Anuttara puja thing is incorrect
Two weeks is an embarrassingly short period of time for a proper retreat
The profits of right livelihood businesses go to the fwbo. Too sanctimonious to point out that work is done for the benefit of others
Leave out 'small' number of Order members have resigned- 'small' diminishes it where one could equally say, 'growing.'
After FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing leave out, 'unlike other buddhist traditions.'
change 'arisal of the bodhicitta,' to, 'arousal of the bodhicitta.'
bullet point on art lacks fluency and doesn't make sense.
in explanation on meaning of the word, 'sangha,' add the word celibate to monastic community.
"Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such its failings are well documented." is pro-FWBO propaganda
change, 'Sangharakshita has received initiations,' to, 'Sangharakashita claims to have received initiations.'
"believing that since he was so often asked for his opinion on the topic he should be able to speak from experience." propaganda-what if someone asked his opinion on rape and murder?
add to 'not practising celibacy,' ,'engaging in sexual acts with a number of different partners.'
in critical stance of fwbo towards other schools, use of word liberalism is unclear - where is the eg for liberalism.
add to, 'violated the rules of the monastic code many times, 'and in a number of ways.'
don't specify in India for misleading people by wearing the robes.
quote from shabda promotes homosexuality in the 90s so it's not a 70s and 80s thing.
after quote on the couple, change, 'this became more controversial,' to, 'subsequently.'
specify, 'homosexual sexual interest could aid the development of kalyana mitrata.
many were coerced at croydon, not just one. giving padmaloka and croydon as the only examples diminishes the problem.
add that yashomitra implied that the same had happened to dozens of men.
fwbo members represent less than 1% of buddhists in britain - bluck.
batchelor's quote has disappeared
add note in sexuality on the greek model of love.
talking about autonomy leading to cult behaviour defers blame as teachings came from the top.
in the intro, does the phrase, 'controversial religious practices,' imply that the sexual abuse was justified on religious grounds.

Response to comments

Changes proposed by anonymous

Not everyone thinks that the fwbo is a controversial movement first and a religious movement second. I feel that putting the controversy later in the first paragraph is enough.

Agree - anon

Radical is not necesssarily a positive word. I can source academically the use of the word to decribe the FWBO. The phrase, 'Radical islamist,' is not positive, so why is, 'Radical buddhist,' propaganda?

Check the definition of Islamist against Moslem-you will see what i mean - anon

I think the case still holds if you say, 'Radical Islam.' It sounds negative. Besides which, I can source the word to a third-party. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, a sentence about the abuse and misogyny should be in the introduction.
I agree - let's source the considered a cult statement using that website.
'Combined' order and 'neither monastic nor lay' are mutually exclusive terms - That's an interesting point. I'll check back in my notes, but I'm pretty sure that's the same words that were used in a third party source.

Yeah but it makes no sense - anon

How about a paraphrase along the lines of, 'Combines monastic and lay lifestyle under one ordination so that there is no distinction between monk and layman.' Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Change, 'some orthodox traditions,' to, 'orthodox mahayana' - what about Vajrayana?

Vajrayana is Mahayana - anon

W::Is it? What about the idea of the Triyana? Perhaps the word Vajrayana should be used there as well as Mahayana, for clarity. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"It is a network of friendships,' specify,' the wbo is a network of friendships.' - fine.
Omit methods of self-improvement. - Why? This actually happens, and it's a sourced statement.
Specify that Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony for ordination, specify that there is a heirarchy despite there being no higher ordinations, put ordination in inverted commas. - I don't know whether Sangharakshita formulated the ceremony.Emm Dee? Isnt it in Rainbow road? Can you source this assertion? How do you know what the ceremony entails? The heirarchy thing is fine, we can add that. But putting ordination in inverted commas is strange - I don't mind if you personally think that FWBO ordination is invalid, but there are many people who don't think that. If you would like more to be said in the criticism section about the doubts cast over FWBO ordination and its validity then by all means find me a third party source and write me an example paragraph.

(Moral relativism-thinking doesn't make it valid/invalid- all valid ordination lineages in the Asian traditions have lineage - anon

Moral imperialism - who says that in order for an ordination to be legitimate it has to be part of a wider Asian lineage? Would you put priestly ordination in Japan in inverted commas because you can buy it by donating to the temple? I recognise the value of traditionalism but it has no place in an encyclopedia article.

The procedure of ordination in Buddhism is laid down in the Vinaya and Patimokkha or Pratimoksha scriptures. There exist three intact ordination lineages nowadays in which one can receive an ordination according to the Buddha's teachings:

   * Dharmaguptaka Lineage
   * Mulasarvatavadin Lineage
   * Theravada Lineage

This appears on wiki

doubts about lack of special status - can an non-OM be a centre chair?

Non-OM can be a center chair. The Rocky Mountain Buddhist Center in Missoula, Montana USA has no OMs currently serving on it's legal board of directors. The center is operated by 'senior' mitras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.251.85 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadhanas should not be referred to as sadhana-this is an attempt to legitimize an invented practice by giving it an Asian language name-the 'sadhana's of the FWBO did not exist in Asia - Please source this statement. How would you even know? Have you been ordained and left? This has nothing to do with it

anyone who knows the Asian Buddhist traditions knows this is how Asian prayer texts are known - anon

In Asia as well as in the FWBO, the sadhanas used in the FWBO require initiation. They're not available to everyone. There are simpler versions available to all both in Asia and in the West, but they are not the full Sadhanas. I hear that nowadays they are available on the internet, but I've never looked for it. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Positive emotion,' isn't emotion a klesha or defilement - this is a great point. It is in fact made many times in FWBO talks - that although we use the phrase positive emotion, metta isn't exactly an emotion. Can you think of a better way of phrasing it? In the FWBO the word, 'emotion' is used for want of a better term.

Metta is Love (not craving!) - anon

Positive emotion includes all the Brahma Viharas, not just metta. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

specify who it is that approches meditation practises from a strong base of integration and positivity - We can rephrase the sentence to be more clear - it is the meditator who does this.

NO, what do the terms mean - anon

Oh, I see! I'll make it more clear after Emmdee has been and looked at this. How about, ' 'Integration,' or a reduction in psychological conflicts, and, 'positivity,' or an other-regarding, life-affirming attitude.' Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Anuttara puja thing is incorrect - source it and it shall be so. I had no idea about that.

Tantra in Tibet - anon

Is that a book? If you go on Amazon you can get the copyright information for the book (Publisher, Author, ISBN etc) which will make it a good source.

http://www.amazon.com/Tantra-Tibet-Wisdom-Dalai-Lama/dp/0937938491 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is an embarrassingly short period of time for a proper retreat - What has this got to do with the neutrality of the article?

I just think it belittles the knowledge base in the FWBO - anon

To include that would be original research then. To be honest, two weeks isn't really the upper limit - solitary retreats and ordination retreats can go on for months - but I can't get a third party source for a more accurate statement. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The profits of right livelihood businesses go to the fwbo. Too sanctimonious to point out that work is done for the benefit of others - Not all of the profits go to the FWBO. A lot of it goes to social projects. I don't think it is sanctimonious, but it can be rephrased to say, 'Is done to generate profits for social projects and FWBO centres and with ethical considerations such as fair trading in mind.'

AGREE - anon

Leave out 'small' number of Order members have resigned- 'small' diminishes it where one could equally say, 'growing.' - Good point. Sorry about that.
After FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing leave out, 'unlike other buddhist traditions.' - Maybe you're right. I'm not sure. It is true that some other buddhist traditions do not ordain men and women on an equal footing. The fact that that is a cultural thing is something that is asserted a lot in the FWBO - remember, buddhism without the cultural trappings - so I don't think it undermines the point. If it becomes a sore spot then it's not that important a statement and it can be removed, but it's not untrue, is it?

Not as things have turned out but the inequality has arisen thru cultural influence not doctrinal IMO - anon

I think it's cultural influence, too. I take it you think unequal ordination is a bad thing? Because for these two reasons - it's unfair, and it's only cultural - FWBO ordination is different. So it's worth pointing out. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

change 'arisal of the bodhicitta,' to, 'arousal of the bodhicitta.' - Another interesting philosophical point. Is the bodhicitta a feeling to be aroused within the self, or a manifestation of the divine that is to arise as if separate from the self? This is something of a koan, is it not? I don't think either word is right or wrong.

If Buddha nature exists, Bcta is within that. It does not come from outside It is not given by some external god or taken from outside the mind - anon

But neither Buddha nature or the B'cta are entirely from within the self - it's neither external nor internal. That's why we do visualisation practices. Sometimes it helps to consider the external aspect and sometimes it helps to consider the internal. There's no right or wrong answer. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While from an absolute perspective outside and inside do not exist, relatively, they do. In dependence upon the methods of meditation we receive from an external teacher and our own acccumulation of the two types of merit (method and wisdom), obscurations are removed and the Bcta emerges. If the Bcta were something that arose from 'outside' in dependence on external causes and conditions, then since the Bcta is one of the two types of Bodhimind (relative and absolute-the wish to liberate all beings and the wisdom cognizing emptiness of all phenomena) that constitute the state of enlightenment, then enlightenemnt would be a dependantly arisen phenomena. All dependently arisen phenomea are subject to decay. Therefore Buddhahood would be a dependant (and thus, impermanent and subject to disintegration) phenomena. Not so! As to what visualization practices are performed for, I do not feel fit to comment on the Buddha's intentions in creating the practice but suspect that they go far beyond just the creation of the reslisation of Bcta. I believe that there are right and wrong answers and the assertion that 'There's no right or wrong answer' is one that I would consider to be indicative of a misconception about the nature of Buddha's teachings.(Sorry!) Neyartha and Nitartha (Sp)(interpretive and definitive)are terms used to demonstrate that sometimes there are absolute truths-a definitive right and wrong do exist in some situations. It is abosolutely true that all beings have Buddha nature, for example. While I agree that Bcta manifests through a combination of the teachings of an 'external' master and the efforts of the (relatively) 'internal' mind, the Bcta itself manifests from within-it is not given to us by someone else.

bullet point on art lacks fluency and doesn't make sense. - you're right. After Emmdee has responded I will get on that.
in explanation on meaning of the word, 'sangha,' add the word celibate to monastic community. - I think that's a fair point, but what about the priesthood in Japan, which is permitted to marry?

they're not monks, they're priests - anon

But they are part of a sangha? Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They may be but they are not part of the monastic sangha-they often marry after all. They are therefore, from the Theravadin interpretation of the term. not sangha. Mahayanists on the other hand would consider them sangha since they are followers of the buddhist path and not because they wear robes.Confusing isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such its failings are well documented." is pro-FWBO propaganda - I don't think this is true. Did you misunderstand and think I wrote, 'write about the FWBO-files'? I think it is in fact a negative statement - that the FWBO has many failings that have been recognised by reputable writers.

AGREE - anon

change, 'Sangharakshita has received initiations,' to, 'Sangharakashita claims to have received initiations.' - Hmmm. Do you have any evidence apart from the groups that work against the FWBO? If a third-party academic source casts doubt in his initiations then your change is justified, but I haven't come across one.

The fact is it is disputed so to say he has is adopting a non NPOV - anon

But it's not reliably disputed. It could just be an accusation made in the FWBO files with no basis in order to strengthen their case. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"believing that since he was so often asked for his opinion on the topic he should be able to speak from experience." propaganda-what if someone asked his opinion on rape and murder? - I know it's difficult reading. I think he was wrong too. But this is what he said and thought. I have used the word, 'Believing.' I can attribute it to a third-party source. I think the fact he used such bad reasoning to justify his acts makes the case for the FWBO worse, not better. It's too inefficient to be propaganda.
add to 'not practising celibacy,' ,'engaging in sexual acts with a number of different partners.' - Fair enough. That can be arranged.
in critical stance of fwbo towards other schools, use of word liberalism is unclear - where is the eg for liberalism. - The eg for liberalism is teaching vipassana to inexperienced meditators.

The view that teaching vip to beginners is too liberal comes from?? - anon

A third party source. It's also the view of Sangharakshita. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

add to, 'violated the rules of the monastic code many times', 'and in a number of ways.' - You're right, this is more clear.
don't specify in India for misleading people by wearing the robes. - Even though I don't think he was misleading people in Britain - because of what he actually said to people about monasticism and lifestyle - I'm willing to give this up as a compromise and agree with you that we should dump the specific mention of India.
quote from shabda promotes homosexuality in the 90s so it's not a 70s and 80s thing. - We can easily get rid of the reference to the 70s and 80s, that's not a problem. I don't want to add the note about Shabda to the article because stuff that's written in Shabda isn't a teaching but a musing that is published for the purpose of being criticised by the author's peers. It's not something being told from on high as it was in the 70s and 80s. And 90s; Anyway, my point is that we can simply get rid of the references to 70s and 80s and make it sound like it is current, without going into pedantic specifics in the article.

dont make it sound current that is not proven - anon

What should we do then? How can we make it sound neither current nor past? Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

after quote on the couple, change, 'this became more controversial,' to, 'subsequently.' - Fine, we can add an element of cause-and-effect in there.
specify, 'homosexual sexual interest could aid the development of kalyana mitrata. - That makes sense, you're right.
many were coerced at croydon, not just one. giving padmaloka and croydon as the only examples diminishes the problem. - A note can be added to make it clear that this was widespread. However, in order for this section to be sourced academically, reference to Croydon and Padmaloka has to be made as this is what the academic authors wrote about.
add that yashomitra implied that the same had happened to dozens of men. - That can be done.
fwbo members represent less than 1% of buddhists in britain - bluck. - No. I've already explained that this isn't true. the figure of 1400 is for the WBO, across the whole world. It is neither a figure for the FWBO, nor is it a figure for Britain. I'm sorry, but as there are no reliable statistics to go on for membership we cannot add a sentence on it.

But don't we know for certain that there are less members of the FWBO than the WBO? - anon

No. That's actually just plain untrue. Maybe I can get a figure for mitras from somewhere to deonstrate - that still won't demonstrate all members of the fwbo, but there are definitely more mitras than OMs. We can't get an accurate figure on FWBO members. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

batchelor's quote has disappeared - No it hasn't, I moved it to a section where it was more relevant. Batchelor's quote didn't bring into question that the FWBO is buddhist. It brought into question that the FWBO is safe and not a cult.

Sorry - anon

add note in sexuality on the greek model of love. - This is a nice addition. Please source it.

Emmdee? it was in the TV program (3rd party source) - anon

talking about autonomy leading to cult behaviour defers blame as teachings came from the top. - In a well-written article we can't focus solely on pinning the blame on individuals. Reputable experts on New Religious Movements look not just at the teachings that lead to bad behaviour, but also on institutional problems that cause authority issues.

Yeah but it hides from the fact that the FWBO is an organisation that exists and can be held responsible for actions in its centres - anon

I think if we add the note that the problems were widespread to some degree, it will widen out the condemnation to the fwbo as a whole. I think it's an important point to make, that the centres are autonomous, because autonomy was supposed to prevent powerful leadership, yet it to some extent created it. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

in the intro, does the phrase, 'controversial religious practices,' imply that the sexual abuse was justified on religious grounds. - We all know that it was justified on religious grounds. But the sex thing isn't the only issue that makes the FWBO controversial. As you yourself have implied, the validity of FWBO ordination is questioned by some. Some say that one shouldn't practise puja without being initiated into it - the FWBO has no initiation into puja. To name but a few.

I'm going to leave a message on your talk page about the way you phrased your comments in their original form. I am hurt and offended by some of the things you said. Rupa zero 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you are offended by my approach-I don't have much time for this stuff-I'm sure youre very nice!I have no malice to you. I am determined that clarity will prevail

I'm looking forward to the revised article going on line-please hurry! An enor mouse.

I'm glad to hear you have good intentions. Sometimes things sound harsh and cutting on the internet that might sound relaxed and informal in real life, so please be careful how you phrase things here. Rupa zero 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite uploaded

I have now uploaded the rewrite, having adjusted it according to the discussion with 80.2.21.233. I feel I have waited long enough for someone else to come along and read through the talk page and it is time to get things moving.

Whoever may be reading this, please read through the main article as it now stands and give us your opinion on what still needs changing. Please correct any little errors such as a stray asterisk or neglected capitalisation. Though I still insist that practise is the correct way of spelling the verb according to UK English.

I'm really enjoying being part of this project. I hope that with a little more effort, we can soon agree that the article has reached neutrality and clarity and pull down those pesky banners. Then maybe I can get hold of some images :)

Metta,

Rupa zero 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this page is ready for removal of the non-neutral banner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 21:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC) Does anyone object to the assertion that this dispute is resolved???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 12:22, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we can remove the cleanup tag as well? I'm going to write on EmmDee, kt66 and other people's talkpages because they don't seem to be checking this page anymore. Rupa zero 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although IMO the article is much better, and much less unbalanced than before (many thanks to Rupa zero for her work on this), I don't think this article is quite ready yet for the removal of the non-neutral banner.

Would it be possible to put direct quotes from cited sources inside quote marks? I'm finding it difficult to work out which parts are direct quotes, which are precis, and which are unsourced. For example, the first section (after the intro) reads:

'Emphases of the FWBO

'According to the FWBO, there are six characteristics that define the Movement.

'The Movement is ecumenical. The FWBO is not identified with any particular strand of Buddhism or Buddhist school, but draws inspiration from the whole array of existing schools. It calls itself ecumenical rather than eclectic because it is founded on the premise that there is an underlying unity to all Buddhist schools.[6] '

How much of the above is 'According to the FWBO' and how much is derived from the cited source at [6]? Its dificult to tell, short of going to the local library and checking Barrett's book (and it might take them a few weeks to get the book via an inter-library loan). This difficulty applies to much of the article at present.

There are some parts which seem POV. For example, the paragraph just before the start of the 'Criticism of the FWBO' section reads:

'The WBO and FWBO are exploring ways to organise themselves and develop their work in a more decentralised way. Debates continue about how to ensure both coherence and flexibility, as well as spiritual depth in the order.'

That last sentence seems too pro-FWBO (besides being unsourced). An anti-FWBO version might read eg.: 'Debates continue about how to maintain an outward appearance of coherence and flexibility, as well as spiritual depth in the order.'

And also, if the F/WBO are trying to 'work in a more decentralised way', how does that square with statements such as 'The WBO is the authoritative and organisational focal-point of the FWBO[12].' Can an organisation be simultaneously decentralised and also have an 'authoritative and organisational focal-point'?

But I think the article is much improved on previous versions. I no longer feel that a major re-write is required, but there is need for some detailed improvements, as per examples above. Rupa zero says on her talk page that she is going to be very busy until 20th September, so I won't attempt to change anything in the article until after then, to give her (and other editors) a chance to respond first. EmmDee 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in particular the 'which had its heydays in the 70s and 80s' line-that could easily be seen as an attempt to put everything in the past. Other commentators have pointed to Maitreyabadhu's comment in 98 wherein he praised homosexual relationships. It could just as easily be the case that the homosexuality idea has gradually fizzled out as Sangharakshita has become sexually inactive (if that is the case) or that the doctrine still exists but at a more concealed level.I think that line should be changed to something along the lines of 'which was most prominent in the 70s and 80s' or something like that-anything more neutral or nothing at all??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you said sounds pretty reasonable. The decentralisation is in a geographic sense - the order still lies at the centre of the movement, but not the specific order members in Birmingham, Tiratanaloka, or Padmaloka. However, I don't know how to change the sentence to make it more neutral, and since I can't source it we might as well get rid of it. Please feel free to get rid of the 70s and 80s line, I had every intention of getting rid of it myself and I am surprised I forgot to do so. Phrases such as, 'according to the FWBO,' are pulled directly out of the last article - I guess some people think the FWBOs emphases are other than how they are described by the FWBO themselves. Barrett doesn't express any such doubts in his writings, and merely describes the FWBO as ecumenical and based on a single essence underlying all Buddhist thought. I suggest removing phrases such as, 'according to the FWBO' if the statement following it can be sourced academically.

I would quite like to have a conversation with 80.2.20.68 about these comments that Maitreyabandhu made in Shabda, because it raises issues about what it means to write something in Shabda. I don't want to have the conversation here as there is so much stuff about Shabda in the archives. It would really help me communicate with you if you had a user account, because then I could write on your usertalk page. Rupa zero 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

i dont' really see the need to discuss it-he made the comments-they were circulated-nobody said a dicky bird-nuuf said!80.2.20.68 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

10 Precepts

I've made a minor addition to the section on the precepts. The canonical sources of the precepts amount to quite a lot more than a single Pali Sutta. The dasa-kusala-dhammas occur in many places, while various fragmentary lists (such as the four speech precepts) also occur quite widely. Similarly there are many Sanskrit sources for this list, or perhaps the same list under the name kuśala-karma-pathas.

Finally the Shingon School has taken the dasa-kusala-dhammas as precepts in the same sense as Sangharakshita from at least the time of Kūkai (ca 9th century). Sangharakshita may have come to know this when working on Meditation Systematic and Practical with Yogi Chen, for the book contains some references to Japanese Vajrayana. mahaabaala 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool-I've tidied it up a bit and stuck in reference to the ten non-virtues outlined in Tibetan texts. Yes, I think S adapted the precepts from Shingon wholesale-hence i have removed the line 'formulated by S' Hope you have had a good break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well no, I don't think S adapted them from the Shingon tradition. He would have well aware of the Kusala Dhammas in Pali from his time as a Theravadin. The idea of adapting them into precepts might have come from Yogi Chen's presentation of aspects of Japanese Vajrayana, however it's clear that the form of them is an adaptation of the five precepts or sikkhapadas - as in panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, etc. The positive counter parts were an innovation by Sangharakshita as far as I know, as traditionally the positive dhammas are expressed as not doing the unskilful thing.

While I'm on this subject, Dharmacarins also take four vows when accepting ordination:

With loyalty to my teachers I accept this ordination.
In harmony with friends and brethren, I accept this ordination.
For the attainment of enlightenment, I accept this ordination.
For the benefit of all beings, I accept this ordination.

Is there a space for this in the same section? It is quite important, and often overlooked. mahaabaala 10:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW There is a longish discussion of the ten kuśala-karma-pathas in the The Mahāvairocana abhisaṃbodhi Tantra, Chp XX (pg 335 ff in Hodges translation). They are clearly intended as ethical precepts. mahaabaala 10:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

'Intended' is interpretive so it would be improper to place that in the article but you could put reference to the above in the citations in the ref section.I think if you include the stuff about extra vows for women you might wake a dragon-all sorts of questions might be asked about why the ordinations are portrayed as equal if the women keep more vows??? Certainly I have heard it said that nuns had more vows because they were more out of control. I don't agree with this but i have heard it said. Such a view is sexist and the next thing you know, critics will start saying the Order's extra vows indicate sexism in the Order-what with the goings on at earth cafe recently, this is best left unmentioned I think!Peace

hey there - please sign your comments - the sexism issue is mentioned, in the criticism section. Where did you get the idea that women take extra vows at ordination? Everyone takes those four extra vows. He said, 'dharmacarins,' not, 'dharmacarinis.' Rupa zero 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally (although I didn't post the unsigned comment above), I thought male OMs were called dharmacaris, and female OMs dharmacarinis, and thought dharmacarins was probably a typo for dharmacarinis. EmmDee 17:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking of it, Dharmacharims is Skt so 'ins would be the right ending-'Yogins'e.g., for the collective noun As to where the idea that women take extra vows, this was from Jayarava above-goodness, does the left hand know what the right hands doing???:)80.2.20.68 14:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah,now I see! Just a bit of confusion. I guess thats what happens when there are so many facts! Still, some mistakes are bigger than others, eh?80.2.20.68 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ps. Where do these 4 extra vows come from? Do they have a canonical source? EmmDee 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as it getting mentioned in the sexism section, the section itself is all of four or five lines and is all written in the past tense (1980s)The Earth Cafe issue continues until the last woman is driven out by the old guard-As far as I know, she is still there and as yet has not started wearing plastic gloves at work when she is menstruating.I would make enquiries before continuing this strand; there is a whole can of worms that some people might not want opened. Best wishes Cyber Pseudo intellectual bore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that menstruation comment. If you can't source something academically then I'm not sure it belongs in the article. At the moment what you are saying kind of sounds like a rumour you heard somewhere. I don't mind you opening a can of worms, if that can has been published in a book or a peer-reviewed journal.

Point is, the four vows are taken by everyone, regardless of gender. Ordination is equal in the FWBO. Rupa zero 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, this is no rumour, it is first hand experience-but rather than me open the can, ask the new manager at Earth cafe if he knows anything about it:)(I am sure something will be published if you really want),As for ordination being equal in the FWBO, great stuff-BTW, what lineage of Buddhist ordination does the FWBO follow?Dharmaguptaka Lineage, Mulasarvatavadin Lineage or Theravada Lineage, AFAIK, these are the only lineages of Buddhist ordination that can be traced back to Buddha's time still existent-so, which is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC) See P Harvey Intro to Buddhism CUP p225-so which lineage of Buddhist ordiantion does the FWBO follow??I answered the thing about wimmins vows above:)Harvey is professor of Buddhist Studies at Sunderland, BTW-the book is standard undergrad fodder (but very accurate mostly!)80.2.20.68 14:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)The telephone number for Earth cafe is 0161 834 9232-just ask for the cafe manager!80.2.20.68 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Actually, I don't really give a toss about the feminism/sexism thing-thats politics, not Buddhism; mixing religion with politics is for lunatics as the twin towers proved. I also don't really care about the views expressed about ordination either. What was it?'who says that in order for an ordination to be legitimate it has to be part of a wider Asian lineage? Would you put priestly ordination in Japan in inverted commas because you can buy it by donating to the temple?'(Yes, I would, BTW) What it seems to boil down to is the question of tradition (thats what the lineage point is about) As far as I can see, there is no Buddhism without tradition, it's teachings are traditional, preserved in traditions, graciously conveyed to us by traditions. No tradition-no Buddhism. And so we come along and decide to chop it up to fit our proclivities??Surely we bend the mind to fit the faith not the faith to fit the mind; what was it'The sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath'???I am afraid the tendency to change things to fit our minds might just be old Mr (or Miss) Ego playing its same old games for the nth time. This is where the FWBO seem to have missed the point in some ways-they think the whole scandal thing is about sexual misconduct/anti family/etc.Sure, it would be good if Denis would apologise (he may not believe he has done anything wrong but right and wrong don't depend on what you believe-try not believing in a bus then walking in front of it)and people were compensated for the damage done But what I believe most traditional Buddhists are really worried about is what they perceive as a bunch of young idealists acting out the ideas of someone still manifesting a good deal of imperfection and screwing up a perfectly good faith that has worked very well for thousands of years. Take a look at http://www.damtsig.org/articles/raucher.html That pretty well sums up the views of most awake people I talk to.You may not like it but its what people are thinking80.2.20.68 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)bored with blah blah80.2.20.68 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Of course, none of this should detract from the fact that, in the big wide imaginary world out there, most people think of people who screw naive disciples that have been convinced that the experience will enlighten them are cult leaders, the naive subjects themselves are cult victims, and those who follow their teachings are cult members-thats just the way the world views things nowadays, of course.80.2.20.68 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC) And BTW, if any of this sounds a little brusque...what to do? Let's not confuse the Dharma with any Western notions of spirituality about being 'nice'. Sometimes, as the Joker once said, 'If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs'. Was Marpa nice to Milarepa? Was Tilopa nice Naropa?80.2.20.68 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to know where you stand on these issues, even if you did have to express it in a 'brusque' way. You are of course completely right that I am enslaved by my ego. And tough love is a skilful means when in the hands of enlightened beings. I nevertheless wonder how successful a tool it is when writing anonymous messages on the internet to someone who you have never met. My own understanding of niceness is this - since I am unenlightened, I must follow the precepts, and the precepts include 'do no harm,' and, 'abstain from harsh speech.' I find that practising the precepts is a great mind training. But all that aside, this talk page is intended for discussion about changes to the article. So, what exactly do you want to change about the article? Rupa zero 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on how to practice; did you know that when teachings were given in SE Asia, monks would speak from behind a fan screen? Seems the Buddha said something about not letting someone's appearance interfere with you hearing the sound of their words.I've heard the Right Speech line before; Theravadin teaching-good but over-ridden by Mahayana Bodhisattva branch vows, (amongst others). I don't want to change anything about the article. Did you read the link? What did you think? Keep smiling!80.2.20.68 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, which ordination lineage was it again???;)80.2.20.68 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read the link. It didn't say anything specifically about the FWBO. I found it interesting - I do think that you have to be very careful when bringing the dharma to the West, and there are certain traditional elements that should be preserved. I happen to think that the balance between traditionalism and liberalism is struck quite well in the FWBO, although you are welcome to disagree with me. My main criticism of the link is that the writer often seemed to make assumptions that certain ideas were mutually exclusive when that is not necessarily the case. As for the lineage thing - I am sure that you are quite aware of the FWBO position on lineages, and I happen to agree with it. If I may politely remind you, the length of a lineage does not determine how seriously those ordained under it practise, nor does it determine the style of practice they pursue after their ordination. One must decide for oneself if one's preceptors are worth the time of day. That is what I am doing. Rupa zero 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-My question is really to do with whther it shoud actually be referred to as 'ordination' if it has no Buddhist lineage (and therefore, from an academic and orthodox viewpoint isn't buddhist ordination) and that really all it is guarding against the ten non virtues, something which the vast majority of Mahayana buddhists do, as well as keeping lots of other vows from the Bstva and Mantrayana vehicles.They just dont claim to be 'ordained' The PQ section might need to go on its own-I believe there are at least two answers still outstanding 152368 and 157747-so the matter is not resolved as yet.80.2.20.68 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about the parliamentary questions.

I guess from an orthodox viewpoint the ordination is not valid, but that viewpoint isn't really relevant to people who don't hold it. Ordination, for us, relates to a preliminary form of the Bodhicitta that we call effectively Going for Refuge. There is nothing to do with collecting extra vows, or getting a higher status than the unordained. There are very few concrete things like vows and lineage and whatnot to back up our ordination because it is based partly on trust in your teachers. Personally, I like that, because no amount of concrete things will convince me of another persons' practise - only my interaction with them will do that. And does it even matter what I think of other people's practice?

I really think that we're working on totally different worldviews here. You seem to be very orthodox and traditional, and I think that the underlying priciples of the teaching are far, far, far more important than formal arrangements such as linege and vows. Maybe if this was real life interaction, and I could see the kindness in your eyes and the worries of your heart, you could convince me that your own path is more effective than that of my teachers. But this isn't real life. It's wikipedia. As such, it is no place to proselytise. Rupa zero 07:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right I believe that the underlying principles are important but also that these have been conveyed effectively by those who maintain vows and practice a living lineage. They are thus inextricably linked; one and the same thing IMO-I don't have much kindness in my eyes, usually just redness and as to worries in my heart, I am sure they are pretty much the same as everyone else's. I have no wish to convince you that my path is more effective; that is something only time will tell In the meantime, I wish you well and good luck at Uni! And believe me, I think you are alright:) Love to all!80.2.20.68 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 'I guess from an orthodox viewpoint the ordination is not valid, but that viewpoint isn't really relevant to people who don't hold it' does bother me though! From an academic viewpoint, assuming you consider Peter Harvey (Professor of Buddhist Studies and Cambridge University Press author!) It isn't valid either-So, from an orthodox Buddhist and academic viewpoint, its not but from a heterodox, neo-Buddhist one it is! So how should it be referred to in an academic paper or encyclopedia? Again, good old liberal relativism is creeping in-It is either valid or invalid from its own side, not depending on how one views it-If a seagull thinks he's an elephant what does that make him?? Cow one: 'Why aren't you worried about mad cow disease?' Cow two: 'Because I'm a duck'.80.2.20.68 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, what a lot of comment came out of my (admittedly idiosynratic) use of 'dharmacarins' as a neuter form of the word which describes members of the western buddhist order. More usually, of course, the masculine and feminine nouns (or case endings if we're being pedantic) are used. However Sanskrit has a perfectly good neuter case, and there are precedents as in: yogi, yogini, and yogin. Sorry for the confusion. 'Dharmacarin' hasn't yet caught on. But I for one would like to see the dropping of reference to gender because it would be in line with the stated view of the order that men and women are ordained on an equal basis. The equality of ordination has admittedly not always meant the absence of bias, although as a guiding principle it has made it easier to weed out such bias. As far as I know the western buddhist order is the only unified order in the Buddhist world. What a breakthrough! Also there is some evidence (see for example women and ordination) that the Buddha did not initially make any distinction between men and women - indeed I have heard Professor Richard Gombrich say that the idea that the Buddha thought women inferior, or that he was reluctant to ordain women, was "a lie" perpetrated by later bhikkhus. So perhaps in this sense the WBO is reviving the original spirit of the Sangha?

Re lineage of ordination. Since the Dharmacarin (sic) ordination is not a bhikshu/bhikshuni ordination, the lineages mentioned are of no relevance. So you could say that the non-bhikshu(ni) dharmacarin ordination is not a valid bhikshu(ni) ordination, but so what? Actually bhikshu ordination is not the only kind, especially in Japan for instance. Many of Sangharakshita's teachers were lay Tibetan yogis, and some of the rimpoches had wives or consorts. Not exactly vinaya style buddhism.

It would easy to misrepresent Sangharaskhita's views on this I think, but my understanding is that he concluded that lineage, like lifestyle (ie living as a monk/nun), is no guarantee of anything. As the Buddha says in the Dhammapada, a shaven head, the wearing of robes, and the begging of food, do not make a bhikkhu. The Dharmacarin ordination is, then, based on effective going for refuge, as witnessed by one's peers, kalyana mitras, and preceptors - in the formal sense one is ordained only by preceptors, but in practice there has to be a broad consensus amongst one's community. If one is seen to be effectively going for refuge then it doesn't matter about your hair-do, or dress-sense; nor (within the limits of the ethical guidelines) what your livelihood is. What matters is that you practice the Dharma effectively. This approach to ordination is radically different from the received tradition. However, the received tradition is a bit bonkers at times, for instance: every bhikshuni is junior to every bhikshu, no matter what - even if she be an Arahant, and he a fresh faced newly ordained boy of 20. What a stupid idea!

Unlike the Bhikshu or the Lama, the Dharmacarin (sic) has no social status as a result of their ordination. A Dharmacarin ordination does not give anyone any special rights (to teach for instance, or to give counsel); and the only duty is to be in good communication with other dharmacarins, especially one's preceptors. Lineage is held up as proof of some sort of legitimacy, some qualification for the social status accorded the bhikshu - which is as much about guaranteeing the merit gained by the lay-people from their donations as anything, IMO. A dharmacarin has nothing to prove, no legitimacy to claim beyond their personal practice of the dharma, and that is a matter which can only be seen in the light of personal contact and observation (usually over quit some length of time). A dharmacarins practice is always under scrutiny by everyone around them. Either a dharmacarins personal practice survives scrutiny, or it does not and feedback ensues - although any kind of coercion is ruled out by the precepts! Despite one or two hiccoughs this is a remarkably successful and robust model for a spiritual community. mahaabaala 11:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the rampant proselytizing and characteristic condemnation of the traditions and, as always, academic name dropping, what's your point? At the end of the day, from an orthodox Buddhist viewpoint as well as an academic one, the FWBOs form of ordination is not Buddhist (Its Rinpoche by the way, Oh widely read one!)As for 'no legitimacy to claim beyond their personal practice of the dharma'; what was the whole tirade about then??The FWBO appears to spend little time doing anything OTHER THAN claiming legitimacy-Five minutes on the cushion is worth a thousand years of intellectualizing-Thus have I heard!80.2.20.68 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Many of Sangharakshita's teachers were lay Tibetan yogis, and some of the rimpoches had wives or consorts. Not exactly vinaya style buddhism.' As a consequence, none of these('Many'?there you go again!)teachers would have had the arrogance to claim they were 'ordained'. Re Dharmacharin I actually mentioned the example of 'Yogin' too, so as to explain why your idea could be valid although I would not have the audicity to consider myself expert in Buddhist languages. Not quite sure what all the stuff about social status is about-is it perhaps another of the means of criticising ordained people that the old abuser engaged in,I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'A dharmacarins practice is always under scrutiny by everyone around them. Either a dharmacarins personal practice survives scrutiny, or it does not and feedback ensues - although any kind of coercion is ruled out by the precepts!' So what happened in Denis's case eh?? 'Despite one or two hiccoughs this is a remarkably successful and robust model for a spiritual community.'When you say hiccups do you mean suicides? ;)80.2.20.68 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Or maybe thirty people left severely psychologically damaged (looks like 'feedback' took some time to 'ensue'. Or maybe a steady stream of ex followers employing the services of at least one ex-cult counsellor 'up North' on a regular basis??? Hiccups? No, serious f... ups.80.2.20.68 11:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

'Unlike the Bhikshu or the Lama, the Dharmacarin (sic) has no social status as a result of their ordination.'Jeez Man, what planet are you on?Since when was there anything called a 'Lama' ordination?If you ARE going to comment on other traditions, follow the example of the great masters and learn about them fully first. Most of your info seems to have been filtered through Denis-I wouldn't even leave my kids alone with him, let alone take his advice on how to view the world or the shortcomings of the traditions80.2.20.68 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

'Re lineage of ordination. Since the Dharmacarin (sic) ordination is not a bhikshu/bhikshuni ordination, the lineages mentioned are of no relevance. So you could say that the non-bhikshu(ni) dharmacarin ordination is not a valid bhikshu(ni) ordination, but so what?' No I say it is not a valid Buddhist ordination, the lineages i mention, the authentic Buddhist ordination lineages are therefore relevant since they are clear evidence that the FWBO 'Buddhist' ordination lineage bears no relation to any that are accepted in the big wide world. ' Your decision to use japan as an example, where Buddhism has become something of an antique and genuine pracice appears to be dying,-'Actually bhikshu ordination is not the only kind, especially in Japan for instance.' shows how little you know about the view of Japanese ordination in the world outside the FWBO-where some believe that the Japanese decision to dispense with the vinaya so they could carry on having sex with females and younger male disciples (now where have I heard that before?) is the very reason for the decline of Buddhism in modern day japan. perhaps that will be the FWBOs contribution to the West too?. Come on, you can 'buy' 'ordination' in Japan. Those types of ordination are about as valid as your own bit of play acting/dressing up.80.2.20.68 09:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked for something to respond to that doesn't rehash the old arguments, that is not in the mode of personal invective (speaking of tirades!) and I can't find anything. I feel pretty happy about what I wrote, it about sums the WBO up for me, and I have nothing to add. I don't feel any desire to haggle with User:80.2.20.68 over this. I've learnt over the years that it doesn't matter what I say, I am judged to be a bad person by the likes of User:80.2.20.68. So I'll just say my piece and move on. May User:80.2.20.68, and all beings, be well and happy. mahaabaala 13:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to say or no valid argument??? I don't think your bad, just deluded and, as with many of your colleagues, unbelievably arrogant (although in your case, you seem sufficiently insecure to sometimes question your attitudes-a good thing!In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king) Love to all-may your empire building and blatant contempt for Buddhists in orthodox traditions soon cease!Love to Kulananda-can't think why he stopped using the name, can you??80.2.20.68 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No desire to argue with anonymous internet people any more. No desire to try to prove anything to anyone in particular. mahaabaala 11:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No desire to prove that you've got no desire-Wow man, Buddhist egotism par excellence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, I do not believe that I have anything important or say on this. Since my name has been mentioned and that has been pointed out to me, I reply: I am not 80. 20.26.38 or whatever it is. I keep myself to myself. I hope the issue between the FWBO and the world is resolved soon, a debate I have not contributed to for some years. Nor have I ever contributed to internet chatrooms. I consider them to be places for the small-minded to pass their time and don't wish to give them any more oxygen than they already have. For me, the most important thing is for us all of to concentrate on our Buddhist practice (irregardless of what anyone may call it) and ignore the internet, a domain for those obsessed with conceptualizations to verbalize those conceptions and then judge them as real. My own advice would be to stay out of this silly and small minded debate and instead focus on practise. In the end what matters for all of us is how much we cling. I hope that everyone in this debate will recognize this and leave this world of petty bickering where it belongs. May my brothers Mahabaala, Mark Dunlop, Sangharakshita,'Verdex' and anyone else lost in this cyberworld of hate soon be released from their suffering. With the greatest respect for each of your aspirations and the wish that Buddhism in the West truly perpetuates the tradition born in the East, I am, your servant, Gary Beesley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.181.1 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say that you have not contributed to the debate in years you are presumably not counting your NBO polemic last year, nor your letter writing campaign to London Local Authorities earlier this year? The NASACRE have you on the front page of their website at the moment man, no way to duck that one! The play at humility and neutrality just doesn't seem to wash - unless someone is impersonating you. Don't anyone else be fooled by this. Gary is actively working against the new Buddhist movements in the UK - not just the FWBO, but the Soka Gakkai, and NKT. Gary may be somebody's servant, but he ain't mine. He says we should all get on with our practice - I would love to Gary but there is the small matter of the FWBO Files and the hate they continue to stir up! 81.107.41.173 (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Banners down

I've taken the neutrality and cleanup barriers down since, despite plenty of people being involved in making minor edits to this article, no concerns have been raised on the talk page regarding neutrality. I hope you all agree that we have reached a neutral and tidy article. Rupa zero 09:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the neutrality and cleanup banners, because I don't agree that we have reached a neutral and tidy article, for the reasons given in my comments of 1 Sep 07. EmmDee 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recall those comments and do not remember there having been any discussion of them thereafter. I am sure this was just an oversight on RZ's part and not intentional (Assume good faith and all that). Well done for pointing it out though; quite right-many of your points were valid as I recall.Cyber pseudo-intellectual bore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Just testing then-thanks80.2.20.68 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry EmmDee, I didn't notice that comment. I'll respond in that section. Rupa zero 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vapour Ya cool, mon, What ya think?80.2.20.68 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is 80.2.21.233?

I have been pondering who this anonymous contributor 80.2.21.233 might be. I have a few observations and then a possible conclusion...

I was puzzled by the apparent shifts from friendly/helpful to angry/accusing to mocking/aggrieved and thought perhaps that we were dealing with more than one person at the same location. But I think now it is one person with a somewhat labile personality... does anyone question that 80.2.21.233 is male?

80.2.21.233 is well versed in the narratives against the FWBO, knowledgeable of all the clichés and caricatures.

80.2.21.233 is also reasonably well versed in aspects of the received Buddhist tradition.

80.2.21.233 does not appear to have been involved in the FWBO. And yet is very familiar with FWBO activities, down to little details like Kulananda using his birth name when teaching MBSR.

80.2.21.233 seems to be obsessed with issues of lineage, validity, and legitimacy. He seems particularly fundamentalist about the textual orthodoxy of Buddhism - if it ain't in a text it ain't Buddhism.

80.2.21.233 characterises the success of the FWBO in the UK as "empire building".

80.2.21.233 portrays the WBO as contemptuous of orthodox traditions.

80.2.21.233 does not make any allowance for individuality - the WBO is an amorphous mass of same minded people according to this view. All WBO members are by definition deluded. Which has a kind of obsessive quality to it.

80.2.21.233 is English and seemingly familiar with "up north" (only northerners really use this kind of phrase in my experience).

80.2.21.233 seems reasonably familiar with academia and UK Buddhist academics.

And 80.2.21.233 is concerned to protect his identity - no hints even, just an IP number...

The style is clearly not Mark Dunlop - he is so implacably anti-FWBO that the friendly/helpful persona has never been observed - the FWBO is Evil - besides which he has never been afraid to associate his name with his comments. Verdex can't string two sentences together without going "Mwah ha ha" or something similar and his English isn't that good. And that leaves very few people who are so resolutely anti-FWBO, and have the energy to pursue the enmity. And very few indeed who are not ex-members.

I wonder whether 80.2.21.233's familiarity with this kind of anti-FWBO rhetoric this might not be because, along with Maurice Walsh (may he rest in peace), he invented it?

In short I wonder whether 80.2.21.233 is in fact none other than the author of the FWBO Files, Gary Beesley, himself? It fits. For instance it would account for both his familiarity and his contempt. The same main themes are present in both this forum and the files. Mr Beesley, ex of Manchester (up north in case you don't know), must needs protect his anonymity because he teaches religious education to children, and if it emerged that he was carrying out clandestine hate campaigns against several Buddhist groups in the UK (FWBO are not his only target) it would surely affect his career.

Could I be right? I guess unless 80.2.21.233 decloaks we'll never know will we ;-) mahaabaala 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW Have you seen the website which has published Verdex's letter to Dhammarati? He outlines his master plan for the destruction of the FWBO, and asks for £80,000 pounds for the fwbo-files domain name? You've just got to laugh don't you?

Jeez man I thought you said you had nothing to say!Or is the illness kicking in? Just to put you out of your misery, I don't teach kids,I don't have a career in RE, I am not ex of Manchester and my birth certificate doesn't have the name above on it. I am a Buddhist though and, unlike your glorious leader, I keep my precept against lying. I am always amazed by the amount of effort you people but into besmirching the name of your critics-L Ron Hubbard was famed for the tactic. What a waste of time-pull the arrow out, don't waste time trying to find out who fired it otherwise you could bleed to death-keep trying!!!PS I love your use of big words-it really gives the impression that you are intellectually superior/inadequate (delete as appropriate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.68 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey I have been watching this discussion but thought I had to speak. Firstly I think the above is 80.2.21.233 just using a different computer. Secondly I think anybody who uses 3 exclamation marks in a row should not be taken seriously. Also how can you consider yourself to be following the precepts or even a Buddhist when you must know that you are acting out of ill will, you cannot say that you are not as it is clear to all of us that ill will is your primary emotional motivation by the way you wrote your previous note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra guru (talk • contribs) 07:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 'All of us'? 'Emotional motivation' 'Vajra guru'? Oh no not another one!!!!:)80.2.20.68 09:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly you have no idea why my username is vajra guru, it actually has little to do with Buddhism really. By emotional motivation you must surely know what I mean, all intentional acitons are driven by intention...makes sense really and it is a fundamental Buddhist teaching. Also by all of us I meant anybody who reads these comments, as anybody could see that your arguments are driven by ill will as opposed to a wish for an unbaised article on the FWBO. And as a final note I am not even a member of the FWBO and I'm not even affiliated with them, I practice in another tradition. I just feel that you are impeding this article, you're not even adding anything useful, and you're certainly no Buddhist by what you're saying here. Where is your compassion? Vajra guru 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Dear Vajra ('I use the name Hitler but that has nothing to do with Nazism')firstly, a basic lesson in Buddhism-you can never know the motivation of others unless you have clairvoyance. In fact, my sole aim in winding up our colleague was to get him to show his true colours and, after a couple of pseudo spiritual lines, he has done just that. In fact, he is the man behind the FWBO campaign to destroy any criticism of them on the internet by setting up as many sites as possible and all the other little tricks that people use to push themselves up the rankings and thus push others down (check out the number of links from FWBO people which he set up, for example).His reference to the letter to Dhammarati on the site above (a site he set up but speaks of in a fashion as if it has nothing to do with him) gives his game up to as does his reference to another of the FWBOs favourite enemies above.His decision to print the name and address of another of the groups critics on the Dhammarati letter page is straight out of the 'loonies who print the names of doctors who do abortions online so people can go and burn their houses down [with them in it]' world. If you look at the Scientology criticism page you will see that it is a well known cult tactic to undermine the views of their opponents by naming them, focusing on negativities on their part and then attack them for this.This distracts everyone from the actual issue itself, as Hubbard observed. I think it is called 'attack the attacker' and lo! He has done just this.Case closed. Now then, if we get back to the article and editing it in a dispassionate fashion acceptable to both sides of the debate....80.2.20.68 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy#.22Attack_the_Attacker.22_policy 80.2.20.68 11:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are clairvoyant now. mahaabaala 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that nobody can truly know the motivation of others, even their own motivations sometimes. I was simply using the comments to try an discern them, I apologise if I was incorrect. My username started out as a Buddhist thing but over time its just because a username with no real significance. From what you have said it seems that you feel this article is pro-FWBO and biased towards them and is adopting the tactic you mentioned. What changes would you make to the article? Vajra guru 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I think it is balanced as it is, a couple of grammatical errors have crept in-I would leave Rupa Zero and Emm Dee to deal with it as they seem to be doing a good job.80.2.20.68 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Rupa zero

Would it be possible to put direct quotes from cited sources inside quote marks? I'm finding it difficult to work out which parts of the article text are direct quotes, which are precis, and which are unsourced. There are some tweaks I think the article could benefit from, but I am a bit reluctant to do this until I am clearer which exact passages are sourced, and which aren't.

You said in your comment of 7 October 2007 (towards the end of 'Rewrite uploaded' section of this talk page) that: 'Phrases such as, 'according to the FWBO,' are pulled directly out of the last article - I guess some people think the FWBOs emphases are other than how they are described by the FWBO themselves. Barrett doesn't express any such doubts in his writings, and merely describes the FWBO as ecumenical and based on a single essence underlying all Buddhist thought. I suggest removing phrases such as, 'according to the FWBO' if the statement following it can be sourced academically.'

The section of the article in question reads:

'Emphases of the FWBO 'According to the FWBO, there are six characteristics that define the Movement.

'The Movement is ecumenical. The FWBO is not identified with any particular strand of Buddhism or Buddhist school, but draws inspiration from the whole array of existing schools. It calls itself ecumenical rather than eclectic because it is founded on the premise that there is an underlying unity to all Buddhist schools.[7] '

Your comment: 'I suggest removing phrases such as, 'according to the FWBO' if the statement following it can be sourced academically.' suggests that only part of the above paragraph is actually derived from the cited source [7] ( Barrett). Its rather unclear. I'm not unhappy with the phrase 'According to the FWBO', just with the rest of the section.

( I might question Barrett's concept of a 'single essence underlying all Buddhist thought' - I thought Buddhist thought was that all phenomena are empty of any underlying essence - but that's a different issue.)

I'm not suggesting that article text should only consist of verbatim quotes from cited sources, that would make writing articles almost impossible. But I think that direct quotes are best, and that when it is difficult to incorporate them in the main text, they could be included in the reference section, so that readers can see what the source actually says.

So would you be willing, over time, to either put direct quotes from cited sources inside quote marks within the main text, or alternatively put them in the reference section. Other Wikipedia articles seem to do this. I appreciate you have already put considerable work into this article, and that you may not have time at present. So no rush. But you have access to the sources, and I don't.

There are some other sections which are either unsourced or not clearly sourced. Eg.

'The Wider FWBO Sangha

'In the FWBO, as in the orthodox Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, "Sangha," is interpreted as the Buddhist community as a whole, and includes friends, Mitras, and Order Members.'

I thought 'Sangha' was sometimes interpreted as above, and sometimes more narrowly, to mean the Arya Sangha - Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. [5] [6]

And: 'Activities and Practices associated with the FWBO 'FWBO centres teach Buddhism, meditation, yoga and other methods of self-improvement that come from outside of the Buddhist tradition.[23] '

Does Clarke really describe Buddhism and meditation as methods of 'self-improvement'? Seems rather questionable terminology.

I think your work has already improved the article considerably, and so I don't want to seem too picky. I think the glass is 3/4 full, so to speak. And I know that Wikipedia can be quite time consuming, if you're not careful.

You know Oscar Wilde's description of a hard days work? - 'In the morning, I took out a comma; and in the afternoon, I put it back again.' EmmDee 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Radicalism?

Good article, imo. Nice job integrating and sourcing the critical material. The article opened my eyes to some of the issues of the leadership's misconduct. I made a few edits tag-additions (diffs) that I hope move things more toward NPOV and VER/OR. (I also moved the proposed article to its own page since the single-level section headers ("=" vs "==") were screwing things up.) One question remains: the lead states "The organisation is noted for its radicalism..." and cites Rawlinson. This is a very vague statement; "radicalism" can mean many things. Could someone with access to the source rephrase? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the word "radicalism." This term could mean almost anything, and therefore means (in this context) virtually nothing. Tathaataa (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction & criticism sections Feb 2008

Moved the detailed criticism of the FWBO from introductory paragraph down to the criticism section. The references to questions in the UK parliament need to be filled out with substance from the reports on their website. The discussions recorded there simply state that a member of the public had raised questions about several Buddhist movements, including the FWBO, but that "The Department [for Communities and Local Government] considered whether these allegations had any relevance when set against the [Faith Communities Capacity Building] Fund's stringent criteria and guidelines. The decision was made that the criteria were satisfied and the award of funding was made.". See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070716/text/70716w0016.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryWhite08 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BarryWhite08 on 2 February 2008 says they: 'Moved the detailed criticism of the FWBO from introductory paragraph down to the criticism section.'

First, the moved references to criticism of the FWBO are not detailed, they are just two sentences, which seems an appropriate sort of length for an introduction. Second, this has been discussed before, and it was agreed that the intro should be balanced, and contain brief info both about the FWBO, and about the criticisms. eg see discussion in other Criticism section, section 9:

I wrote on 15 July 2007 '... So I think you have to describe both what the FWBO is, and what the criticism is, before going on to analyse the merits of the respective positions.'

Rupa zero wrote10:12, 19 July 2007: ' I totally agree with you ... I thought a neutral introduction would be a given as an introduction should summarise the whole article.'

Therefore I have reverted changes by BarryWhite08. Also, it is probably better to put new discussion comments in a new section towards the end of the talk page, rather than insert them among earlier comments.

I don't disagree that more info should be given about the parliamentary questions (in the criticism section, not in the intro) EmmDee (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my comments in the talk section in order EmmDee. As previously stated, I don't think the first introductory paragraph is the place for what I consider to be detailed references to criticism. Of the seven sentences that the introduction consists of, three of them refer to criticism. It is also conspicuous that the first sentence states, 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) is a religious movement...', and not simply a Buddhist movement: this may also be taken as implicit criticism. The article as a whole cannot be considered to be neutral. The Criticism of the FWBO section contains 8719 characters, and the remainder of the text contains 9078 characters, some of which also contain criticism. This means that about half of the text is critical. If one takes the Wikipedia article on the UK Labour Party as an example of a reasonably well constructed article, one can see that the opening paragraph is quite neutral, "The Labour Party is a political party in the United Kingdom. Founded in the early 20th century, it has been since the 1920s the principal party of the left in England, Scotland and Wales (but not in Northern Ireland, where the Social Democratic and Labour Party occupies a roughly similar position on the political spectrum). It has formed the national government of the United Kingdom since 1997. It is also the largest party in the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales and the second largest party in the Scottish Parliament. It holds the London mayoralty and is represented in the European Parliament. Its current leader is Gordon Brown." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29). Most of the well written Wikipedia articles that I have read, begin with a neutral paragraph and then take up the critical debate under the heading of, for example, Criticism. BarryWhite08.

I haven't put your comments in the talk section in order, I just followed-on from what you had written. You inserted your first comments inside ALR's comments of 11:20, 24 April 2007, just before where they wrote 'TIA'. I think that the best thing would be to cut and paste our current comments down to a new 'Criticism section 2008' (or similarly titled) section at the end of this page. I will wait for your response before doing this, though.

I don't really understand why you consider the references to criticism in the intro to be [overly] 'detailed'. ISTM they could hardly be less detailed, without disappearing completely. Perhaps you could suggest a less detailed version, then I might be able to understand what you were getting at.

Don't agree that the first sentence: 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) is a religious movement...' is implicit criticism (because it says 'religious' rather than 'Buddhist'). If anything, it is biased too much in favour of the FWBO. IIRC, the text originally said the '... (FWBO) is a New Religious Movement', which is slightly more critical (and is how the then cited source described the FWBO, and also other sources such as Batchelor), but somebody changed that to 'religious movement'. The current cited source, Barrett, refers to 'The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions', but not AFAIK to 'religious movement'.

Its not really appropriate to describe the FWBO in the intro just as a 'Buddhist movement', because that would be biased against those (Crook, Jones, et al) who consider the FWBO to be a pseudo or deviant form of Buddhism.

If, as you say, about half of the text is critical (and the rest is non-critical or promotional, it can't be described as neutral), then that seems about right. Though personally, I think the article is still a little biased in favour of the FWBO.

Don't agree that the comparison with the Labour party article is particularly helpful, the Labour party is a very different kind of organisation - it takes part in democratic elections, unlike the FWBO, and AFAIK there are no allegations of [systematic] sexual abuse and misogyny[5] etc. against the Labour party, or that these factors are implicit in their teaching or ideology. Nor is it registered as a Religious Charity. A better comparison IMO would be with controversial organisations such as Scientology or the NKT. If you look at those articles, the intros acknowledge that there is controversy and criticism.EmmDee (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

EmmDee: you are probably right that Scientology or the NKT make for a more exact comparison. Regarding democracy though, I would have thought that in so far as religious groups such as the FWBO or Soka Gakkai International are seen by government agencies as legitimate religious groups, even after review (see my earlier quote referring to the UK Parliament and funding for religious groups), they can also reasonably be viewed as an accepted part of democratic society. As for the Labour Party being free of misogyny, this appears also to be a controversial issue. See e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece from 2005.

In thinking about what the first introductory paragraph should contain, I had a look at the Church of England entry, out of interest. Curiously there isn't any reference at all to criticism there in the intro section, as was also the case with the Labour Party entry. There are of course many controversies in the CofE, present and past. Once upon a time its very existence was controversial. I don't know how true it is but it is generally said that the CofE was primarily created to facilitate Henry VIII's desire to remarry. I suppose at the very least this goes to prove that mature religious organisations can emerge from controversial or even dubious activities on the part of central figures in that organisation.

The intro section on the page on the NKT seems much less detailed and more like an introduction, even though citing a specific criticism. In response to your request for a suggested alternative first paragraph, I have some make suggestions to make about the following section: <<The organisation is noted for its radicalism,[4] and has been the object of a good deal of criticism, due to controversial religious practices, unorthodox teachings, and allegations of sexual abuse and misogyny.[5]The FWBO is considered by some Buddhists to be a cult[6], and is also listed on a number of cult awareness organisations' websites[7][8][9]. Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultic behaviour against the organisation.[10]>>.

I would suggest either changing the phrase "unorthodox teachings" to e.g. "what one scholar/several commentators/etc. considers to be unorthodox teachings", whilst including a reference, or alternatively removing it, if no support can be given. This section: <<and is also listed on a number of cult awareness organisations' websites[7][8][9]. Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultic behaviour against the organisation">> is what I consider to be too detailed. It is enough to state that <<some critics (citation) consider the FWBO to be a cult>> without also referring to "some Buddhists" and "cult awareness sites". A discussion of the view that the FWBO is a cult, and exactly who thinks this and why, fits best with the other critical discussions around the FWBO, in the Criticism section. Likewise, the fact that questions have been raised in the UK Parliament does not tell the reader anything of actual substance. A longer discussion of the background and outcome of this matter would be more useful, and it would also be well placed in the Criticism section.

By all means move the discussion down to criticism 2008 EmmDee. BarryWhite08

I'll pass on discussing the Labour Party, democracy, and the C of E.

As regards the sentence: <<The organisation is noted for its radicalism,[4] and has been the object of a good deal of criticism, due to controversial religious practices, unorthodox teachings, and allegations of sexual abuse and misogyny.[5]>> I would be very reluctant to change this, as I believe it was written by Rupa zero using the cited sources. (see her posts, eg of 00:42, 10 August 2007 in the 'Rewrite uploaded' section ). But I don't have access at present to those sources myself, so I can't check how closely Rupa zero's words tally with the cited sources. But I would be suprised if she was anything other than meticulous. So for that reason, I would be against changing this section, unless it was to be replaced with more accurate verbatim quotes from the cited sources. (And I second the request from Jim Butler in the 'Radicalism?' section above)

As regards the sentence: <<The FWBO is considered by some Buddhists to be a cult[6], and is also listed on a number of cult awareness organisations' websites[7][8][9].>>

You suggest changing "some Buddhists[6]" and "cult awareness sites[7][8][9]" to 'some critics [6][7][8][9]'. I think this would be unecessarily terse (and vague), and would do nothing to make the article either more or less neutral overall. I don't see that saying the critics include both Buddhists and non-Buddhists (the cult awareness sites) is too detailed. Please explain why, if you disagree. The sentence as it stands does not by any means amount to 'A discussion of the view that the FWBO is a cult, and exactly who thinks this and why', as you put it. So I am against changing this sentence in the way you suggest.

As regards the sentence: <<Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultic behaviour against the organisation">> your concern here appears to be that it is not detailed enough, that it 'does not tell the reader anything of actual substance.' Well, it does tell the reader that some MP's are concerned enough to raise questions in parliament, which is a matter of some substance.

I agree that a longer discussion of the background and outcome of this matter might be useful (in the Criticism section), though I suspect that you might be stirring up a hornet's nest, if those MPs or the press feel that you have misrepresented the situation in anyway. And AIUI this matter is by no means concluded, there is more to come. This matter, of the government funding alleged cults such as the FWBO, NKT, and SGI, as part of their laudable aim to support Faith Communities, is related to the question of the government likewise unwittingly funding alleged Islamic terrorist organisations. There is a journalist called Jamie Doward (of the Observer), who is following this matter quite closely, and there may be others. I would be very careful, unless you are completely sure of your ground.

Overall, if of the seven sentences that the introduction consists of, three of them refer to criticism, I can't see that that is biased in favour of the criticism. EmmDee (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the move of the discussion makes it much easier to work with! As I am more of a passing tourist of these pages, I am content to let the matter of the first paragraph rest. I will take the opportunity to make some general comments about the FWBO, in relation to the criticisms raised in the article. I have followed the debates about the FWBO for many years, though not as many years as they have been going on. My sense is, like many others, that the FWBO has gradually changed for the better over the last 15 years. A feature of the FWBO in the 80's was a tendency amongst some members to pressurise others into adopting certain beliefs or activities – whether this came from the top down, or was a product of peer competition, or even simply an anomaly created by a limited number of individuals is not clear. The explorations of same-sex friendship, which led to some complex, and in some cases even harmful relationships, were also more prevalent at that time. I think it would be fair to say that the founder of the Order has some unusual views about men and women, which have influenced followers in unexpected ways. These two factors are though much less a feature of the FWBO now than they were ten or fifteen years ago. I don't know how common same-sex sexual relationships between otherwise non-homosexual members are today, but Buddhist marriages and long-term live-in partnerships between men and women are not at all uncommon.

The Order has succeeded in creating a few determined enemies over its almost 40 year history, something which in the end should not be surprising in view of Sangharakshita's outspokenness and unusual opinions, not to mention the confused and in many cases sexual relationships that occurred in the 80s and 90s at all levels of the FWBO. It is worth noting that in the Buddhist tradition as represented in the Pali texts, relations between the sexes were controversial from the beginning of the whole tradition, and monks sought all sorts of ways to circumvent the Buddhist Order's rule of celibacy. Buddhism as a whole, because of its emphasis on celibacy and renunciation, and its distinctive non-theistic metaphysics, will perhaps always be at odds with other systems of thought and practice. The seeming encouragement of homosexual relationships is probably the most unique feature of the FWBO vis-a-vis the Buddhist tradition, but this particular phenomenon seems to have all but died out, as far as I can tell. The exclusivity and pressure to conform seems to have decreased, though may still be present, but even here members of the FWBO can be seen attending events held by other Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups. The point of comparison between Buddhist tradition and the FWBO, to be clear, is that the FWBO has attempted to solve issues inherent in the Buddhist tradition, even if the solutions used came from outside that tradition. BarryWhite08 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really the place for general discussions, only for discussing improvements to articles, so I will try to be brief. You say (2cd para): ' in the Buddhist tradition ... relations between the sexes were controversial from the beginning'. Do you have a source for this view? My impression is that Buddhism is rather less hung up about sex than some other religions. Buddhist scriptures do not seem to reflect controversy about relations between the sexes, see for example the Mangala or Sigalovada Suttas.

You go on to say: 'Buddhism as a whole, because of its emphasis on celibacy and renunciation ...'. Don't know where you got this idea from. Obviously monks and nuns are supposed to be celibate, but I would guess that probably less than 1% of Buddhists are monks or nuns. There is a precept for laypeople against sexual misconduct, but not against non-celibacy. Also, AFAIK three out of the four main Tibetan schools were founded by laymen, not by monks.

It may be true, as you say, that 'monks sought all sorts of ways to circumvent the Buddhist Order's rule of celibacy' (source?), but ISTM the easiest way to circumvent this rule is not to become a monk in the first place. Some deluded people, such as Sangharakshita, desire the status of a monk without giving up sex, but I would call such people liars and hypocrites, not Buddhists. Presumably they don't believe in karma either.

You say: 'the FWBO has attempted to solve issues inherent in the Buddhist tradition'. Some of the FWBO's solutions seem not dissimilar to those employed by the Japanese Shingon Buddhist Patriarch Kukai, who decided one way to circumvent the Buddhist Order's rule of celibacy, was to engage in same sex relations, see [7] I have heard that the WBO's Ten Precepts are adopted from the Shingon school, don't know if this is true or not.

One final point, you mention Buddhism's 'emphasis on ... renunciation.' ISTM this is a quasi-Christian interpretation. Buddhism rather emphasises insight into the (emptiness and) transitory nature of all phenomena. There's no such thing as an endless summer, in other words. Renunciation without insight is a recipe for confusion and unhappiness. The Buddha recommended a middle way between renunciation and (over) indulgence. EmmDee (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is a lot of room for interpretation in Buddhist tradition :) Thanks for the discussion - signing out. BarryWhite08 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FWBO - Buddhist or not?

Tathaataa says (Article History page 14:17, 18 April 2008) 'Not even critics such as John Crook and Ken Jones say that the FWBO isn't Buddhist.'

Yes they do.

The Guardian (27 October 1997) [8] reported that: 'Ken Jones, lecturer and author of several books on Buddhism', said that in the FWBO:

"There's a culture of angry young men struggling against women, the family and the state. All of that has nothing to do with Buddhism and a lot to do with Sangharakshita's psychology. In that kind of culture, you can get cult like behaviour and victimisation. It's a deviant form of Buddhism."

And in the paper 'Dangers in Devotion:Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru' [9] John Crook writes, for example:

"It is this that leads many of us to see the FWBO more as a cult than as a Buddhist institution or school in accordance with tradition."

"[...] It therefore also has the form of a 'cult' independent from other forms of traditional Buddhism."

"These Buddhist cults resemble the guru-based institutions of Hinduism more than they do their Buddhist origins."

EmmDee (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi EmmDee,

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you. The sources you quote are, I believe, both taken out of context and subject to mis-interpretation. In the first quote you offer,

"There's a culture of angry young men struggling against women, the family and the state. All of that has nothing to do with Buddhism and a lot to do with Sangharakshita's psychology. In that kind of culture, you can get cult like behaviour and victimisation. It's a deviant form of Buddhism."

Jones is saying that the "culture of angry young men" he identifies within the FWBO has nothing to do with Buddhism. He locates the origin of that culture in Sagharakshita's psychology. He doesn't say that the FWBO itself is not Buddhist.

In other places, for example in his paper, "Many Bodies, One Mind," he describes the FWBO as "Buddhists-with-attitude," as having "its own unique version of Buddhism," and he implicitly counts the FWBO as being a Buddhist organization when he says "Of course all Buddhist organisations have a distinctive mind set (which includes shared doctrine). In the three movements, however, what is noteworthy is the degree of uniformity with which this is manifested throughout the organisation."

Similarly, he numbers the FWBO among Buddhist organizations when he says:

"This ultimate sense of superiority inevitably sets limits on the value of dialogue between the movements and more "open" Buddhists"

and that the FWBO, NKT, and Soka Gakkai are

"by far the largest organisations in the UK Buddhist community'

and

"That these UK Buddhist movements constitute a problem at all arises in part from the weaknesses of the British mainstream."

At no point does he suggest that the FWBO is not a Buddhist organization.

In the first John Crook quote:

"It is this that leads many of us to see the FWBO more as a cult than as a Buddhist institution or school in accordance with tradition,"

he's not saying that the FWBO is not Buddhist, but that he believes that it is not in accordance with tradition and is more like a cult. It's a long stretch to portray that statement as meaning that he believes the FWBO not to be a Buddhist movement at all.

In fact he explicitly describes the NKT and FWBO (in your third quote) as being "Buddhist cults." If his "more as a cult" statement meant what you say it means, he's have said that the NKT were "cults and not Buddhist."

He also says "The FWBO has been and remains an important contributor to Buddhism on the world stage." It would be odd for him to consider that a non-Buddhist organization was an important contributor to Buddhism.

In the summary of "Dangers in Devotion" he described the point of his paper thus:

"The nature of cult-like institutions in Buddhism is discussed and the role of teacher examined."

In other words the FWBO is considered as a "cult-like institution" within Buddhism -- not outside of it.

Also in the summary he gives a précis of his argument that the FWBO would benefit from democratization as follows:

"Democratisation of many current Buddhist organisations is seen as an essential prerequisite."

Again, the FWBO is being considered as a "current Buddhist organisation."

In summary, the quotations you offer are taken out of a context in which the FWBO (and other large UK Buddhist institutions) are considered as aberrant and sometimes cult-like (although Jones is careful to state that he doesn't consider the FWBO to be a cult) movements within Buddhism. At no point do either of these writers state that they believe the FWBO not to be Buddhist. I therefore plan to revert the introduction.

Tathaataa (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tathaataa, you make a large number of points, so I will respond just to your first point for now, and await your response. I am reluctant to repond to your susequent points until we acheive some measure of agreement on your first point. One thing at a time.

In your first point, you quote Jones:"There's a culture of angry young men struggling against women, the family and the state. All of that has nothing to do with Buddhism and a lot to do with Sangharakshita's psychology. In that kind of culture, you can get cult like behaviour and victimisation. It's a deviant form of Buddhism."

And comment that: 'Jones is saying that the "culture of angry young men" he identifies within the FWBO has nothing to do with Buddhism. He locates the origin of that culture in Sagharakshita's psychology. He doesn't say that the FWBO itself is not Buddhist.'

It is true that he doesn't use the exact words 'the FWBO is not Buddhist', but he does say that the culture within the FWBO 'has nothing to do with Buddhism' and that 'It's a deviant form of Buddhism'. In light of this, I cannot see how the current article text 'The FWBO is a Buddhist movement' can be justified, its too much of a gloss, and ignores those like Jones who AFAICS say nothing like 'The FWBO is a Buddhist movement'. Also, the cited text, Barrett, refers to 'Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions', not AFAICS to 'Buddhist movements'.

You are not happy with the term 'Religious movement'. I am not happy with the term 'Buddhist movement'. As a compromise, I suggest 'quasi-Buddhist movement'. Other possibilities (in your words) might be 'cult-like institution within Buddhism' or 'aberrant and sometimes cult-like movement within Buddhism' EmmDee (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

Actually, I don't make many points. I merely demonstrate, with examples, that you've taken quotations out of context and either misunderstood or misconstrued them in order to support your thesis that the FWBO is not a Buddhist organization.

I've already dealt with the point you've made here. Rather than my, as you assert, "ignoring" Jones, I showed how in his essay he both implicitly and explicitly accepts the FWBO as a Buddhist organization. Please read my points again. There is little to be gained by my repeating what I've already written.

I'd disappointed that in your response you perpetrate further misreadings of Jones' article. Jones does not in fact say - as you claim he does - that "the culture within the FWBO 'has nothing to do with Buddhism'". What he says, quite explicitly, is that the culture of angry young men in the FWBO owes nothing to Buddhism. He does not say that FWBO culture per se has nothing to do with Buddhism. In fact, as I've repeatedly pointed out, he does in his essay accept the FWBO as a Buddhist organization.

And if the FWBO is a "deviant form" of Buddhism then the FWBO is, if you'll pardon my pointing out, a form of Buddhism that is deviant. How can an organization be a "form of Buddhism" without being "a form of Buddhism"?

The term "quasi-Buddhist" appears to be one of your own devising, and thus constitutes "original thought" and is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. Also, "quasi" (as I'm sure you know) means "apparently but not really" and so it hardly constitutes a compromise. Your proposed compromise is to move from saying that the FWBO appears to be, but in fact is not Buddhist, to saying that it appears to be, but in fact is not, Buddhist.

You say you are "not happy with the term 'Buddhist movement,'" but I'm afraid that your lack of happiness is not the arbiter of what is suitable in a Wikipedia article. Please don't revert until you have some real evidence.

But I'd suggest you let this one go. You apparently have no verifiable grounds for saying that the FWBO is not a Buddhist organization. Certainly neither of the texts you reference support that notion. Even if you did find support for such a viewpoint, given that even critics such as Jones, Crook, Batchelor, and others describe the FWBO as Buddhist, in combination with the fact that the FWBO is part of Buddhist network organizations such as the EBU and NBO, that viewpoint would likely be held by an "extremely small minority" and, as Jimbo says regarding such cases "it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article." By way of comparison, those of us who are Catholics are familiar with accusations that Catholics are not Christians (accusations made by people who have published more books than Jones and Crook, incidentally). Perhaps on those grounds you'd support the injection of those sentiments into the Wikipedia entry on the Roman Catholic Church, but happily they seem not to have made it in there - or have been removed. As this one will be.

Tathaataa (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tathaataa, your views and interpretations are interesting, but, as you have probably gathered by now, I do not concur with them. I can see how you might interpret Jones as accepting the FWBO as a Buddhist organization if you take selected statements, such as his statement that the FWBO, NKT, and Soka Gakkai are 'by far the largest organisations in the UK Buddhist community' in isolation. If taken in context with other statements, such as 'Its a deviant form of Buddhism' (It being the FWBO), your interpretation is rather less persuasive.

However, its all a bit moot, because Wikipedia policy is that material added to articles should be verifiable and that sources should be cited [10]: '... readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source'. The statement that 'The ...(FWBO) is a Buddhist movement' is currently unsourced.

An earlier version of the article, which was uploaded by Rupa zero at 00:29, 10 August 2007 began: 'FWBO stands for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. It is a new religious movement that was founded by Sangharakshita in 1967 in the UK.[1]' The cited source was (and still is): Barrett, D V (2001), The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions, p. 307. On this page, Barrett States: 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) was founded in 1967 by an English Buddhist monk, Sangharakshita (born Dennis Lingwood in 1925)'. Barrett does not seem to refer to the FWBO as a 'Buddhist movement', and the title of the book refers to 'Sects, "Cults" and Alternative Religions'.

It is notable that Baumann in Clarke's 'Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements', and Morrison in Partridge's 'Encyclopedia of New Religions' (both cited elsewhere in the article) seem to refer consistently to the FWBO as a 'New Religious' Movement and not as a 'Buddhist' Movement.

Similarly with other academic works such as 'New Religions from a Global Perspective' (Clarke), 'Cults and New Religious Movements' (Dawson), 'A Reader in New Religious Movements' (Wilkins and Chrysiddes), and 'New Religious Movements in the West' (Elisabeth Arweck), which all feature the FWBO.

I think Rupa zero put quite a lot of work into researching her re-write of the article, and she seems to have been quite conscientious in quoting her sources. Her version, '... new religious movement ...' seems to accurately reflect the prevailing terminology used in academic references to the FWBO. However, her version was changed first to 'religious movement' and subsequently to 'Buddhist movement'. I cannot see that this change improves the article over Rupa zero's version. You appear to be the only editor currently arguing for the change to 'Buddhist movement'.

It may be that there are reliable sources which refer to the FWBO as a 'Buddhist movement', but any such sources should be cited, and, if relevant, some indication should be given as to whether particular sources represent a majority or a minority view, otherwise there is a danger of selectivity and bias. See [11]

'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.'

I will give you time to respond, before making any changes. EmmDee (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have quite extensively cleaned-up this entry on the FWBO. Coming to this page cold, I was very surprised by the somewhat arcane and, may I respectfully suggest, often rather sectarian discussion here on the talk page. I'm not aware of any body or individual who holds a list of who is and who isn't a Buddhist. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. Thus... To rake over this commentator or that commentator, I'd suggest is to ignore what thousands of FWBO friends do every day of the week. As for the obsessive raking-over of sexual scandals that, from any detatched viewpoint, are a long time ago, never involved reports of child abuse or other very serious wrongdoing, and in which fewer than a handful of individuals were ever publicly implicated, I feel the balance was quite wrong. Prior to my cleanup, the article appeared utterly obsessed with criticism of this kind. Arguably, it still is. Nevertheless, one must take allegations of sexual exploitation seriously, and feel compassion for those who feel they were abused, exploited or misled.

I trust that other editors will receive my cleanup in a positive spirit. 83.244.194.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ken Jones

Further to the above, I have removed a claim that Ken Jones grossly disaparaged FWBO, which was misreported from The Guardian article. In fact, he was criticising certain aspects of behaviour. His actual views, at the time, can be found in his own words at the following webpage: [12]. As one can see, he is actually very positive towards FWBO, and gives it a great deal of credit. 83.244.194.132 (talk)

Parliamentary question

I have also deleted reference to a parliamentary written question, which, as the answer revealed, was the unsubstantiated complaint of a single member of the public, whose criticisms were not accepted. This renders the question moot, and of no relevance to an encyclopedia entry (except possibly a compilation of rejected complaints). No evidence is produced of any misdeeds, or of any wider concerns.

Cleanup?

Editor 83.244.194.132 has made a considerable number of changes, including removing much of the properly sourced critical material and adding unsourced material (which seems like pro-FWBO spin and soapboxing to me). The net result is that the article seems too biased in favour of the FWBO. Describing this as a 'cleanup' is misleading [13]

Their comment:'To rake over this commentator or that commentator, I'd suggest is to ignore what thousands of FWBO friends do every day of the week.' suggests that Editor 83.244.194.132 does not understand or accept the nature of Wikipedia - its intended as an encyclopedia, not as a medium for FWBO publicity. Wikipedia guidelines are that articles should be based on ' reliable, third-party published sources' and be written from a neutral point of view:

'Reliable sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' [14]

'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' [15]

Therefore I have reverted the article to the version of 14:22, 10 August 2008 by 90.207.63.83 . If this results in an edit war, I shall appeal to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [16]

I do not claim that this version is perfect, but any changes should be made item by item, giving reasons and allowing time for other editors to respond, and not in the wholesale way that 83.244.194.132 has edited. This especially applies to the removal of properly sourced material. There is also quite a long history of discussions in the talk pages of this article, and so editors should be aware that these issues about NPOV and sources have been discussed before, see for example discussions involving editor Rupa zero around July and August 2007. EmmDee (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the previous editor's version, which appears to me to be well-written, fair, balanced and quite proper. Having lookked into this, I think that the author of the "files" must surely be active here, and I think that Emdee is that person. His obsessive hostility to this buddhist group oozes from everything he does. To delete everything that the previous editor contributed is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and indeed if Emmdee says he wants this referred to the wider editor community, then I agree. I certainly do not think the existing version is perfect, but it is at least something we can work with. It is far superior to the muddled accusations and hateful innuendos, based on complaints which were few in number (apparently one newspaper article and the content of an anonymous website - when wikipedia does not generally recognise anonymous "attack" sites) and a very long time ago. Emdee, you are plainly hunting for every last thing you can throw at this organization, even down to a rejected complaint, which you think is among the most important things about this organization. Sadly for you, that can't be right, and no wiki editor will agree with you. I also see that you have restored the strange note at the end about how one of you websites has similar information to another of your website. I have never seen such things anywhere in wiki. Wikipedia is not a place to wage vendettas, or to cyberstalk those you have a grudge against. You plainly have a grudge, and so I welcome your offer to seek arbitration concerning this page. I hope other editors join the discussion. 78.105.77.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit, which took me a long time to do, and to which I gave a lot of thought. I will try to finish adding new references, but for the time being people can always add the citation needed tags. I have looked back at Emmdee's edits and I'm also convinced that he runs the "files". This is an anonymous "hatesite", and, as such, wouldn't be accepted by the vast majority of wikipedia editors. I think that objective mediation would lead to its deletion as a reference.

To give you an idea of where Emmdee is coming from, I found a FOURTEEN-LINE entry on one of FWBO's retreat centers. This is what Emmdee has added to it. It reads a pure hatred and homophobia.

== Criticism ==

Padmaloka's parent organisation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) has been the object of a good deal of criticism, due to controversial religious practices, unorthodox teachings, and allegations of sexual abuse and misogyny.^[1]The FWBO is considered by some Buddhists to be a cult^[2], and is also listed on a number of cult awareness organisations' websites^[3]^[4]^[5]. Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultic behaviour against the organisation.^[6]

The Guardian newspaper published a crtitical article about the FWBO on 27 October 1997, called 'The Dark Side of Enlightenment.' [17] Among other things, this article quoted the following statement by senior FWBO member Dharmachari Subhuti who, like Sangharakshita, was based at Padmaloka for a number of years. The statement is from a paper by Subhuti presented to 'The Conference on the Ordination Process for Men', held at Padmaloka on 9th - 10th July 1986. This paper was subsequently published in the FWBO magazine, 'Shabda':

'Sexual interest on the part of a male Order member for a male mitra [novice] can create a connection which may allow kalyana mitrata [spiritual friendship] to develop. ...

Some, of course, are predisposed to this attraction, others have deliberately chosen to change their sexual preferences in order to use sex as a medium of kalyana mitrata - and to stay clear of the dangers of male-female relationships without giving up sex'. (Subhuti, pub Shabda, September 1986, p125).

This statement was also read out on BBC East's 'Going for Refuge' TV programme about the FWBO, which was partly filmed at Padmaloka. This programme (part of the 'Matter of Fact' series) was broadcast on 12 November 1992. In it, Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory in Northumberland, UK [18] made the following comment on Subhuti's above statement:

'To me this is totally contrary to the Buddhist precepts, it's totally contrary to the Buddhist scriptures, and it's absolutely contrary to any sort of good practice. It to me is a form of manipulation.'

In 1999 Tricycle Magazine published an article entitled 'Friends of the Western Buddhist Order: Friends, Foes, and Files' by Henry Shukman (Vol. VIII No. 4 Summer 1999), which reported that:

As reported in the Guardian, the FWBO's Croydon Centre (which - like most FWBO communities - is single-sex) had by the late 1980s become the scene of intense psychological manipulation: one man committed suicide and many others were reported to have suffered mental trauma. The center's head was accused of having coerced several men into homosexual relations by using a convoluted corruption of the Buddhist doctrine of conditioning promulgated by Sangharakshita himself, which proposed that spiritual friendships are essential to spiritual development, that such friendships between men could be inhibited by the fear of homosexual contact, and that the best way of overcoming that fear was to engage in homosexuality. (p 113)

The FWBO claim that the problems revealed in the Guardian article had only occurred in their Croydon centre, and that such events had never happened at any other FWBO centre (Kulananda, FWBO Communications Office, Wed 29 Oct 1997 [19]). However, the Tricycle article went on to report that:

Other observers fault the FWBO for refusing to accept that Croydon was not an aberration, but a fairly predictable outcome of the Sangharakshita ideology. And early critic Dunlop remembers Padmaloka, the FWBO's retreat center in Norfolk, as rife with homosexual activity.

In response, the FWBO says there was indeed a climate of sexual experimentation in the past, and, yes, mistakes were made, - but there was nothing consciously coercive going on. According to Vishvapani, "What happened in Croydon was an aspect of certain attitudes around in the FWBO, but taken to an extreme. In Padmaloka, you had a lot of people who were gay. It did get a bit out of hand and it got disbanded in 1989. But I've never heard of anything unethical going on there. It was just a rather tangled sexual mess."

According to Ananda, "it was inevitable that it would all blow up, because people were just so messed up. Yes, gay

sex was definitely in the air. It was the way to become part of the new Buddhist revolution. People took that whole sexual liberation thing too literally. In the early days we weren't big on practice; we were just Buddhists hanging out, going to lectures, doing yoga. We were naive. People who had been ordained by Sangharakshita tended to develop their own little castles of which they were the unchallenged masters." (p 114)

FWBO's Response to Criticism

As is often the case with a New Religious Movement the FWBO has attracted some criticism during it’s existence, some of which relates to experiences of people living at or attending retreats at Padmaloka.

Much of the criticism relates to a period in the history of the FWBO around the 70’s and 80’s when there was a climate of sexual experimentation. These days probably most people involved in the FWBO would consider that period of experimentation as one of naive idealism and feel saddened by any damage it may have caused to the people involved.^[7]

The primary document used to criticise the FWBO and which contains references to Padmaloka is known as the FWBO Files ^[8]. In response the FWBO Files has been criticised by the FWBO.^[9]^[10] Also in response a statement by the Network of Buddhist Organisations (UK), which is signed by seven prominent UK Buddhists says

“The FWBO Files set out to blacken the reputation of one of our members, and much of the material contained in them has been regurgitated in the current attack on the NBO. The FWBO Files have been thoroughly discredited, although they are still in circulation.”^[11]

I think your description of cyberstalking is right. Emmdee is stalking FWBO. 83.244.194.132 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In his comment above, Emmdee talks about my edit being too biased favour of FWBO. Respectfully, this is an encyclopaedia. It is here to describe factual information, and to report any controversies and criticisms in a proportionate, neutral way. The entry is not meant to be for or against anything at all. As for the laughable demand that claims that FWBO isn't Buddhist should dominate the entry, perhaps he could go make similar additions to the entry on the Catholic Church, or any protestatant denomination, suggesting that commentators have criticised whether they are Christian. See how far he gets with other editors. 83.244.194.132 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

^ Coleman, James William (2001), The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition, p. 163, 171 and 144 {{citation}}: Missing pipe in: |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); line feed character in |Publisher= at position 25 (help)
^ Crook, John, "Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru - '...It is this that leads many of us to see the FWBO more as a cult than as a Buddhist institution or school in accordance with tradition.'", Western Chan Fellowship, Paper presented at the conference 'The Psychology of Awakening' at Dartington Hall, UK, October 1998
^ "Cult Information Centre". Links Page.
^ Hassan, Steven. "Freedom of Mind Center". Resource Center.
^ Ross, Rick. "The Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements". Links Page.
^ PQs 147208&9, 152364, 152368, 156701, 157746 & 7. A further PQ (45434) was raised in 1998 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semaphoreserver?DB=semukparl&FILE=search
^ "Controversy in the FWBO: some Responses and Reflections". FWBO Discussion Website.
^ "The FWBO Files".
^ "The FWBO-Files: A Response". FWBO Response Website.
^ "A Comment on the Refutation of the FWBO's Response to the FWBO Files". FWBO Response Website.
^ "The NBO-Files". Network of Buddhist Organisations Website.

[1] Coleman, James William (2001), The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition, p. 163, 171 and 144 {{citation}}: Missing pipe in: |Publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); line feed character in |Publisher= at position 25 (help)

[2] Crook, John, "Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru - '...It is this that leads many of us to see the FWBO more as a cult than as a Buddhist institution or school in accordance with tradition.'", Western Chan Fellowship, Paper presented at the conference 'The Psychology of Awakening' at Dartington Hall, UK, October 1998

[3] "Cult Information Centre". Links Page.

[4] Hassan, Steven. "Freedom of Mind Center". Resource Center.

[5] Ross, Rick. "The Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements". Links Page.

[6] PQs 147208&9, 152364, 152368, 156701, 157746 & 7. A further PQ (45434) was raised in 1998 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semaphoreserver?DB=semukparl&FILE=search

[7] "Controversy in the FWBO: some Responses and Reflections". FWBO Discussion Website.

[8] "The FWBO Files".

[9] "The FWBO-Files: A Response". FWBO Response Website.

[10] "A Comment on the Refutation of the FWBO's Response to the FWBO Files". FWBO Response Website.

[11] "The NBO-Files". Network of Buddhist Organisations Website.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]