A reflection on the controversy around Sangharakshita my teacher

I write this article as an individual member if the Western Buddhist Order for the benefit of those who wish to engage with Sangharakshita’s teachings, but who are unsure as to his authority as an interpreter of the Dharma. It contains my personal reflections, and is not an official FWBO document.

Adiccabandhu
September 2006 Blackburn UK

1. A Brief Biography of Sangharakshita- taken from the FWBO web page

Sangharakshita is the founder if the Western Buddhist Order, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) and the Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayak Gana, (TBMSG) as the movement is called in India.

He was born Dennis Lingwood in South London, in 1925, and had a Church of England upbringing. But from an early age he developed an interest in the cultures and philosophies of the East. Aged 16, after reading the Diamond Sutra, he had a distinct realisation that he was a Buddhist. He became involved in London’s germinal Buddhist world in wartime Britain, and started to explore the Dharma through study and practice.

He was conscripted in the Second World War and posted to Sri Lanka as a signals operator, and after the war he stayed on in India. For two years he lived as a wandering mendicant, and later he was ordained as a Theravadin Buddhist monk and named Sangharakshita (‘protected by the spiritual community’). Sangharakshita lived for 14 years in the Himalayan town of Kalimpong, where he encountered venerable Tibetan Buddhist teachers — so he had the opportunity to study intensively under leading teachers from all major Buddhist traditions.

After 20 years in India, Sangharakshita returned to the UK to teach the Dharma. In 1967 he set up the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order — a new Buddhist movement for the modern West.

All the while he taught and wrote extensively. He is now the author of over 50 books. Most of these are expositions of the Buddhist tradition, but he has also published a large amount of poetry and four volumes of memoirs, as well as works on aspects of western culture and the arts from a Buddhist perspective.

Sangharakshita played a key part in the revival of Buddhism in India, particularly through his work with the followers of Dr Ambedkar (formerly known as Untouchables). Around one third of the Order is in India, where the movement is called Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayak Gana, or TBMSG. Throughout his life Sangharakshita has been concerned with issues of social reform.

Now in his 80s, Sangharakshita has handed over his responsibilities for the FWBO to a group of senior members of the Order. From his base in Birmingham, he is now focusing on personal contact with disciples, and on his writing.

What is Sangharakshita’s approach to the Dharma?

Sangharakshita’s aim as a Dharma teacher has been to be a translator between East and West, between the traditional world and the modern, between timeless principles and practices relevant to those living in a western world.

He has always emphasised the decisive significance of commitment in the spiritual life, the value of spiritual friendship and community, the link between religion and the arts, and the need for a ‘new society’ that supports spiritual values. In founding the WBO and the FWBO, he established a sangha built around this approach.


What authority has Sangharakshita to set up a new Buddhist movement?

Some schools of Buddhism, Tibetan and Zen, for example rely strongly on their established lineage as a source of authority. The Theravada have the authority of the monastic code (the Vinaya), linking the present monastic forms to those of the past. Each school has its own canon of sacred texts along with their commentaries.

The FWBO is based on a radical critique of these forms of authority. Sangharakshita did not seek authority from a lineage, or from a form of Buddhism already established in Asia. He has not been authorised by anyone, and is not answerable to any external ecclesiastical authority. He created the FWBO and the WBO as a new order, not as a reform, or development of any previous order or school of Buddhism. For these reasons, many Buddhists of other traditions do not regard the FWBO as an authentic Buddhist school.

Buddhists from outside the FWBO are often wary of some of Sangharakshita’s apparently more personal interpretations of the Dharma. However, it would be a shame if this wariness were allowed to obscure the value of Sangharakshita’s teachings could have for all Buddhists, and especially for Buddhists in the west.

Some of his interpretations of the Dharma are radical. They are radical in that they derive from the very roots of Buddhism, and they attempt to express its basic message in a way which is relevant to us in the west today.

What about Sangharakshita’s sexual behaviour?

For twenty years Sangharakshita lived the celibate life of a Buddhist monk in the Theravada tradition. When he disrobed in 1960, Sangharakshita started to experiment with sexuality and remained sexually active for the following 10- 15 years. At that time, he was engaged in setting up a new Buddhist movement the FWBO (Friends of the Western Buddhist order) and the WBO - the ordained members. Sangharakshita’s sexual partners were men friends and acquaintances in the FWBO.

Although Sangharakshita made no secret of his sexual behaviour at the time, neither was it widely known throughout the movement the extent to which he was sexually active. In effect, while some knew, many did not.

In 1986 an issue of ‘The Golden Drum (an FWBO magazine) carried an interview with Sangharakshita in which he spoke about his sexual ‘experimentation’. On reading the article, most people in the FWBO took the experimentation to have been limited to a few people, of short duration, and without negative consequences. Peoples’ confidence in their founder was not fundamentally shaken by the knowledge that he had been sexually active.

That is, until three major communications - the Guardian article of 1997, the FWBO files and a letter written by an order member (Yashomitra) to the order journal, Shabda in 2003.

1. The FWBO Files. Sometime in 1997, a campaign was launched to discredit the FWBO. This campaign is maintained largely through the upkeep of a file carrying criticisms of Sangharakshita and the FWBO. The authors are anonymous, and remain determined to attack the movement. The FWBO files are still going strong to this day.

2. The Guardian article. In October 1997 an article was published in the Guardian newspaper, written by Madeleine Bunting. Entitled ‘The Dark Side of Enlightenment’, the article revealed the extent of the sexual activities of Sangharakshita and his disciples, and was critical of the attitudes to women and families within the FWBO culture. This article was a bombshell to many within the order and movement.

3. Yashomitra’s letter. Most order members were even further shocked by the revelations in Yashomitra’s letter. In March 2003, he wrote about his sexual relationship with Sangharakshita, in 1980 when he was aged 19. On looking back, he felt that he had been ‘misused’ because he held Sangharakshita in such high regard as his spiritual teacher. Although the young disciple had other sexual partners at the time, he regarded Sangharakshita as his friend and teacher. So, he believed that sex was expressive of that friendship. When the sexual relationship ended, he was left confused and upset. Although Sangharakshita continued to be friendly towards him, the young man felt that he was not regarded as a friend.

What is the controversy about Sangharakshita’s sexual behaviour?

I believe there are four key issues.

1. . Sangharakshita’s sexual partners were young disciples who regarded their Dharma teacher very highly. This guru-disciple relationship clouds the issue of consent. How easy is it for a young disciple to refuse a sexual advance from his teacher? This was bound to lead to problems. Yashomitra’s letter spelled this out clearly.

It is worth noting that several order members assert that their sexual relationship with Sangharakshita was good for them, and they have no regrets.

2. Sangharakshita’s example of ‘experimentation’ with sex in single-sex friendships contributed to a culture where abuse did take place by some order members. Yashomitra’s letter is explicit about one such incident. The case of Croydon Buddhist Centre stands out as an example of coercive and abusive behaviour under the regime of a young chairman who was resistant to all outside criticism.

Some people are still recovering from the damage done in those years.

3. As Sangharakshita wore his monastic robes on his visits to the order and movement in India, Indian order members and mitras naturally assumed him to be celibate. Sangharakshita was sexually active at the time. Sangharakshita asserts that he wore robes in India (and the golden anagarika kesa in the west) to signify that he was the founder of the order, not that he was celibate. The order in India was unaware of Sangharakshita’s sexual history, or of his reasons for wearing the robes. Given the attitude to homosexuality in such a traditional culture, it was a huge shock to the movement in India to discover the truth .

4. A culture critical of the family and the heterosexual couple began to evolve. The heterosexual couple was seen as antithetical to the vision of New Society, at the centre of which were single sex men’s and women’s communities. There are many examples of FWBO followers leaving their partners and children in order to live in communities, or of trying to raise their children in single sex communities. This culture evolved in a movement which had only limited contact with the rest of the Buddhist world, so that people were unclear as to what ideas were the Dharma, and what was questionable FWBO thinking. Many people both within the movement and those who have left, still feel pain from those ‘experimental’ years.

What is Sangharakshita’s response?

Sangharakshita asserts that all sex is unskilful, as it is an expression of greed for sense pleasure. To that extent, he says, he has been unskilful, but no further. He has always insisted that he understood his sexual relationships were consensual, and that people could, and often did refuse. He believes he has done nothing for which he should apologise.

What has been the effect on the Order?

At the time of Yashomitra’s letter and the subsequent period of shock and turmoil in the order and movement, Sangharakshita was ill. Those close to him advised postponing letting him know about these events until he had recovered.

As Sangharakshita slowly recovered from his illness and started to re-engage with the movement, those disciples closest to him relayed the recent events. There was a general hope and expectation among more senior order members, and in the order and FWBO worldwide, that Sangharakshita would speak publicly on the matter. Many felt that if Sangharakshita publicly acknowledged the upset that many people were feeling and expressed regret at the suffering that had resulted from his sexual activity. Sangharakshita knew of these expectations but chose not to respond. He continued to believe that anything he said would be misinterpreted and, because he had not done anything for which he should apologise, it might make matters worse.

Order members in general accept Sangharakshita’s main teachings. Sangharakshita’s more seminal books which are expositions on Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings are still highly regarded, while some are now seen to belong to a different era.

In general, order members remain loyal disciples, feel deep respect and gratitude to him. They continue to appreciate the order and movement he has founded. But many also are more aware of his faults and are still recovering from the discoveries of recent years.

Did the order or movement make any public response?

There have been two public responses that I know of. In 1997 the FWBO Communications Office wrote a response to the criticisms levelled against Sangharakshita and the movement. Although the response was written with the best of intentions, its credibility was seriously undermined by the decision not to be fully frank about the extent of Sangharakshita’s sexual activity. It was feared that as homosexuality was taboo in India, Sangharakshita’s followers would be subject to physical attack. As a consequence, the ‘response’ was severely criticised both within the order and in the wider world.

In November 2004 Subhuti, delivered two high profile talks to the order. He was chair of the preceptor’s college at Madhyamaloka at the time, and felt that the order and movement was beginning to lose its momentum with this unresolved breach with Sangharakshita. He wanted to help heal that breach. He believed that healing that breach meant addressing Sangharakshita’s sexual history. Subhuti was openly critical in these talks ;

“I have come to think that there are severe problems with Sangharakshita’s sexual activity in the past...in a sense he did not know what he was doing altogether and… some big mistakes were made…Wearing robes is just not on.. As a spiritual teacher you carry weight that does not allow you to simply be one human being with another human being. That sexual activity was bound to have problems”.

Subhuti went on to say that acknowledging these problems, could help one could arrive at a true appreciation of Sangharakshita’s qualities as the founder of the movement and as a teacher.

Subhuti’s second talk was a call to action re-invigorate the order included a programme of clarification of values and institutions which he offered to lead.

Although the initial response in the order was good, dissenting voices began to be heard. Some felt that they did not want Subhuti to speak about Sangharakshita on their behalf. Several senior order members felt that Subhuti’s leadership was not what the order needed at this time. More time was needed to absorb events and for order members to work out their relation to their founder .

Neither of the above attempts to speak publicly on behalf of the order and movement worked.

As confidence is returning to the order and movement, one thing is clear: there is no one who is authorised to speak on behalf of the order. Meanwhile the order is still in dialogue with itself about its relation to Sangharakshita’s sexual activities and their consequences. Opinion is still divided as to the most appropriate way forward.

What is your response, Adiccabandhu?

When the Guardian article came out I was deeply distressed. At the time I was living separately from my wife Padmasri helping to lead a men’s community of about a dozen people. I was also working for free for Clearvision, a right livelihood business. The article turned my world upside down. I personally knew that the FWBO files were highly unreliable slurs and venomous spin, as they brazenly misrepresented the work we were doing at Clearvision and in the world of Religious Education. When I had completed my commitments to Clearvision, I left the business and returned to teaching. Padmasri and I decided to live together again. I decided to withdrew from all order and FWBO activities for an indefinite period.

My burning question was; ‘Am I a disciple of Sangharakshita?’ I would decide whether to leave the order or not.

After a period of about a year, I realised that the order was where I wanted to pursue my spiritual life. I felt that I could trust my friends in the order completely, that here were people who strived to be in truthful and mettaful communication. This was where I could find a Dharma practice that had meaning for me. I love this order and hope it flourishes.

My relationship to my teacher is mixed. From the beginning I never liked the awe in which he was held. Neither have I been attracted to him as a person. Some of his teaching I have never agreed with, and I have told him so.

I feel deep regret at some decisions I have as a father, as I allowed my thinking to be influenced by the prevailing FWBO culture.

I think he let himself and the order down by his lack of awareness of the potential consequences of his actions. I feel great pain that he has not engaged in open dialogue about these consequences. But I do not want any part in any public disapproval of my teacher and still have not given up hope that he may yet speak. It has been painful for me to dwell so much in this article on my teacher’s faults, but is only through this process that I can help myself and others to appreciate his greatness.

In the end, I owe Sangharakshita my teacher immeasurable gratitude for founding such an order and movement. I believe that his radical translation of the Dharma has helped me transform my life, and on that basis I give him authority to be my teacher, and I recommend his teachings to you.

Adiccabandhu
Blackburn
September 2006