Simply Uncool

In Genpo’s post below I appreciate how he seems to be embracing giving up being a special Zen priest and accepting being a humble ordinary man. Perhaps this will turn out to be  the beginning true growth for him.  Perhaps we could all benefit from such growth.

http://genpomerzel.com/blog/studyingmyself/

Diane,

Your profile states you are the "dharma successor" to Genpo and the link below indicates Genpo had "an affair with the woman he was grooming to be his successor".

Is this woman you?

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/disrobing-genpo--brad-warner/

    Let's Make A World That Works.... 

Uncool -- based on ideas of social propriety and conformity.

WELL!

How about this:  using these events as grist for the mill!

Such as:

doing a 3-2-1 process on/with them

doing a Big Mind triangle based upon them

"A good man,

before he can help a bad man

finds in himself

the matter with the bad man."

Lao Tzu -- Tao Teh Ching

or . . .

we can just continue to righteously find fault and blame and disown and keep nicely unconscious and pathological in these august spiritual circles!

Start with "sexual misconduct, disowned"

then, "sexual misconduct, owned, embodied, appreciated"!

then, "righteousness, disowned"

then, "righteousness, owned" (immature, mature)

then, a triangle -- apex = sexual misconduct + righteousness

Get the picture?

Diane,

Thanks so much for this... As you know, in the theory of group psychodynamics, we have a tendency for "splitting" when we encounter the moral transgressions of leaders, celebrities, or any public figures to whom we have offered some authority over us. This leads, almost inevitably, to regression when our expectations are disappointed. The harshness of judgments express just one form of this regression, as if I could never imagine myself making such a mistake. 

Your essay is so helpful for me as I think about the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, and the variety of ways that we respond to deposed leaders.

Stay cool!

David

--

Rev. David C. McCallum, S.J.

Doctor of Eductation: Leadership and Learning

New York, NY

davidmccallumsj@gmail.com

Hey--

Loved reading your comments...here are my comments and her responses from her blog post on her website.

 http://www.dianemushohamilton.com/2011/02/simple-uncool/

----

Ryan Parks

FEBRUARY 19, 2011 AT 11:31 PM

I’m sorry…

I love you Diane and I’d love to jump in with the enthusiasm of this thread, but this seems like far far less than what is needed in this community… And what has been needed for several years.

Cool? A far cry from ethical. I think MTV demonstrates that… and if you try to bring the ethical precepts of community into a filter of cool/uncool, you’re inviting a great deal of confusion.

Brad Pitt? Cool… Paul Giomotti…uncool.

Who’s more ethical…does it really matter?

Does cool even really matter?

Where do ethics come into that?

Motorcycles going off jumps with giant explosions…really, really, cool…and Zen teachers that drive motorcycles? Totally cool. And that’s the whole problem!

This entire community is completely deluded by cool.

You know what’s not cool…admitting your own shit all the time, dealing with it, humbling yourself enough to say when you’re wrong, over and over and over again, and doing very serious and transparent work to make a change. It’s admirable, but sure as hell isn’t cool.

Jim Morrison was cool, and I think we’d be screwed if we raised him as a leader in this community.

For that matter, Stuart Davis is cool but he certainly isn’t the model of ethics we should be following as a community.

I would be deeply saddened if this was the model this community decided to pick up and run with…because in fact, I think that’s what it’s been doing all along and it hasn’t really worked yet…

___________________________________

admin

FEBRUARY 20, 2011 AT 4:46 PM

Dear Ryan, This injunction works for me because it puts it into language that is immediate to me. Everyone needs their own method. The 12 steps are beautiful…

___________________________________

Ryan Parks

FEBRUARY 20, 2011 AT 9:19 PM

Dear admin (Diane?)

I think it’s great that this injunction works for you… however, what is proposed in this blog post is a ethical compass for an entire community.

One, in which I’ve been participating in for many years, and have a unique perspective on.

As stated in the original post:

“In the meantime, however, while we are learning and while these policies are developed and implemented, I would like to introduce a handy word that may help guide you in your decisions until the ground rules are put on paper. The word that I want to offer to you in your search for integrity is simply “Uncool.”

“Is this cool or uncool?” It is a simple word, decide”

This may work as an injunction for you…however, I would contest that, though it works for you…it might not be the best compass for a community…

Which at this point, is really what’s needed.

Which again is why I said this: “this seems like far far less than what is needed in this community… And what has been needed for several years.”

I don’t know that I would entirely agree that everyone needs their own method, and…if in fact that actually is the case, then what’s the point of a blog which has something “offer to you in your search for integrity”

Furthermore, I re-read the posts, and I don’t see anybody suggesting the 12 steps as an alternative.

Your reference to them here seems oddly unrelated and like deflection or distraction from the actual concern for the community that I expressed.

____________________________

admin

FEBRUARY 21, 2011 AT 12:56 AM

The Buddhist precepts already exist in Zen communities. If you read my post, you saw that I support the development of ethical guidelines for Zen organizations. I added another, somewhat humorous and down to earth idea which was intended for individual readers, not communities. Maybe I should ask what you think would be best?

____________________________

Ryan Parks

FEBRUARY 21, 2011 AT 8:26 AM

Dear Diane-

It’s good to see that you’re responding and I’m so that glad you asked the question that you asked.

Yes, I know that precepts already exist in Zen communities, and that you support the development of ethical guidelines for Zen organizations. Ethical precepts exist in Christian communities, and Jewish communities and on and on… I think the reason for that is because they are significant. Hugely significant.

The issue here is that we are participating in a much larger community than just a Zen, Christian, or Jewish community. The ethical practices of teachers in this greater integral community impact us all.

You are a leader in a bigger community than just Zen and so is Genpo. The Integral community transcends those precepts, and right now, we’re all struggling with a deep heartbreak. (another one for me)

So what about the Integral community?

I love that you ask me what I think would be best. It’s definitely a question that bears consideration (and trust me, I AM considering it).

I think it’s high time we ALL start focusing on that, and coming up with some answers. I alone, may not have the answers right now, but I think the best thing I can do, is challenge the teachers and/or the community to start seriously thinking about it. Now.

What I think would be best, is if we “seekers” and those of you in teacher roles would take a little more responsibility for our power and our impact on the greater post-traditional practice community in which we all participate.

My immediate answer is demanding that we all take a look at the elephant in the room rather than having a laugh and shrugging it off.

And that’s my point. Your answer is humorous and down to earth, but, to expect that it will only have an impact on individual readers is not taking into full account your position in the community. So, given that, what do you seriously think Diane? Is cool/uncool the new ethical barometer of the integral community? I don’t think you do, so…

Here’s a more immediate question. Genpo is no longer a Zen teacher, but now he is moving on to teaching Big MInd. Do we continue to embrace him as a leader in the integral community? If so, what ethical precepts do we have to support that decision, or, if not, why not? What would be cool and what would be uncool? We don’t actually have the ethical precepts to answer that question, and it doesn’t seem that we have the leadership in the teachers to answer it either.

My thought- any teacher who’s had a serious screw up should be significantly transparent about exactly what they did wrong (and why they think it wasn’t wrong if that’s what they believe), who they hurt– as well as how, why and what they’re doing to make amends. I would love to see the same from students, but they are not in leadership positions, so while it’s significantly important, it’s just not AS important as it is for teachers. If we are to raise up leaders, I would expect some transparency about their fuck-ups and their fix-its.

I think that probably, in this case, the the best thing would be to realize that you’re not JUST talking to a few individual readers. You are a leader in this community. I’m simply doing my part to say that I expect something better than a “somewhat humorous and down to earth idea” and I hope the rest of this community is willing to raise the bar as well.

What the community could use right now, is a little more than some humor and an aside to individual readers. We could use some leadership. Some serious accountability. A direct and clear inquiry into ethics. An honest and searching holding of some very serious questions. Some transparency. And maybe a little more authenticity about what IS going on, and what HAS been going on in the past.

In my experience there’s a lot of people spiritualizing their shit, covering it in glitter, watching it sparkle and calling it God. The first time someone says “something smells funny” the collective reaction seems to be “he who smelt it dealt it.” I personally think we can do better than that.

Interesting point of view. I'm new here, so maybe I will seem rather naive and uncool, but i my view being uncool is a lot better than being cool, so that doesn't bother me.

Perhaps Diane doesn't mean the same thing by her use of this term "be cool", but I think it's still in the ballpark. Coolness means, I gather "doing the right thing", and it depends on the illusion that we actually know the right thing to do, when generally speaking this is never the case, even for "advanced" students and teachers. I suppose it also means "don't harm others", but really do we even know how not to harm others? Not just world history, but our personal histories, tend to demolish such myths.

The "cool kids" are those who think they know the right way to do things, to talk, to act, to be. We see them all over any kind of spiritual gathering. They are what a lot of people want to be, and so they tend to be popular and attract friends and even students. They become teachers because that's what the cool kids do. And they even become "good teachers" or "cool teachers". But their coolness is just an illusion, a social mask they have put on and that others support because that will confer coolness on them also.

Okay, so Diane wants to be one of the cool kids. Maybe she actually is one. I gather she must be, since she's a Roshi of some kind. Good for her. But being cool has little or nothing to do with genuine spiritual practice, and I wish she knew that. But if she knew that, she probably wouldn't have people treating her with the respect that the cool kids get, and maybe she wouldn't be a Roshi, and maybe she'd have to struggle a lot more. And she wouldn't write essays like this aimed at helping other people become cool kids also.

Nothing against coolness, it's kind of fun in a light-hearted way. But it's got virtually nothing to do with spiritual life, or real life in any genuinely integrated way. What is it that really helps people? Love does. Not coolness. Now, love can look all kinds of ways. It can even look cool sometimes. But generally it isn't cool at all. One who loves, who surrenders to their real heart, is not cool, and doesn't cultivate coolness. They don't really know what cool means. They don't even know what doing the right thing means. They know that almost everything they do is going to be a mistake. But they don't care, because they only really care about love. They don't use their coolness to get them through trouble, they resort to love.

And love is the only practice that actually transforms us. Wilber I know likes to talk a lot about transformation, which is great, but the only force that really transforms us or anyone else is love. Not coolness. And love is not controllable, it controls us. All these helpful rules and guidelines for sex and so forth are fine and good to a degree, but they aren't a solution and they aren't even in the direction of a solution. The solution is for people to love one another for real. The solution for teachers is not to rope off their genitals but to genuinely love their students. Not use them, or make them into narcissistic mirrors to reflect their coolness back to them. They have to really learn to love, and then to learn to teach love to their students by their own example. That will solve all these issues, and if that doesn't happen, none of these issues will ever be resolved.

And the solution for students is not to refrain from sex with teachers, or to view them with suspicion, but to love them for real. Not use them to gain coolness. Why do students sleep with teachers in the first place, when it comes down to it? It's to become cool. To gain by sexual osmosis some of the teacher's coolness. Sometimes it works, and things seem to have turned out well, and sometimes it doesn't and we call that a scandal. But in both cases, if the purpose was to become cool or practice coolness, it's all just a waste of time. If it was about love, then there's no praise or blame, it's all good. If there's a mixed bag there, that has to be sorted out. But it has to be sorted out on the basis of whether what was done was love, rather than whether it was "cool".

And lets face it, a lot of what we do, spiritual or otherwise, isn't about love. We hardly know what the word means. We have to learn it the hard way. So it's not surprising that students and teachers get into messes. The problem often comes from a lack of facing up to the reality of what motivated people. Most often, it was about becoming one of the cool kids. That's what's usually being promoted. Diane is just more honest about it. Or maybe she's really convinced that being cool is actually what it's all about. Could be.

Poonja Swami (Papaji) used to say that the problem is never the result of bad Gurus, but it is always the result of bad students. By that he didn't mean that there were no bad Gurus, only that without bad students, the bad Gurus have nothing to gain. A genuinely good student will not be harmed by bad Gurus, they will only learn from the experience. But a bad student, one who thought he would gain in coolness from the experience, will always end up missing out and being exploited or delusional, even if they don't know it, even if they think they've succeeded and are now one of the cool kids. To be a good student means not bothering to become cool. Even high school kids know this. To learn, you have to sacrifice coolness and become genuinely vulnerable, open, and risk your reputation. You have to risk being wrong and being made into a pariah. Love will fuck you up, that is guaranteed.

Being wrong is not the worst thing in the world. Being loveless is. Being right is not different really than being wrong. Being right is not love, it's just another way to be cool and accepted. Fucking things up royally is far from the worst thing you could do. Even hurting people isn't the worst thing you could do. Love won't prevent you from hurting anyone. In fact, the opposite can easily be the case. You can't protect the world from yourself, or from one another. Spiritual life isn't about trying to make such a world. It recognizes that all such attempts are futile and besides the point. They miss the mark. They are "sin". Only love redeems us from that, even as the round of error-filled life goes on.

Okay, enough blather. Does any of this make sense?

Why pretend it is a long drawn out process to establish guidelines to protect people; "we have a long way to go until the people in charge can get us the guidelines they are talking about."

Insight Meditation Center has established well thought out guidelines. The question is are people willing to abide by doing the right thing?

"a)                A sexual relationship is never appropriate between teachers and their students.

b)                During retreats, formal teaching occasions, or interviews, any speech or actions indicating interest in a student-teacher romantic or sexual relationship is inappropriate.  This applies to anyone in a teaching role, including senior students.

c)                 If interest in a genuine and a committed relationship develops over time between a teacher and a student, the student-teacher relationship must clearly and consciously end before a romantic relationship begins.  A minimum period of three months should elapse from the time when they mutually agree that their formal teacher-student relationship has ended.  This understanding must be coupled with a conscious commitment to enter into a relationship that brings no harm to either party.”

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/fliers-forms/Ethics%20and%20Reconciliation%20Policy.doc"

If sleeping around is simply uncool, why do experienced highly trained Zen masters do it?

What is it about Zen that allows ignoring the obvious?

I have a sort of list of things which I imagine a high Zen training would be good for.  I've just crossed "good sexual morality" off of that list... but perhaps that is too black and white.  Is Zen supposed to make people far less likely to commit "mistakes"?

But then there is the size of the mistake.  I'd imagine a highly trained person would still make mistakes but the mistakes would become smaller and more subtle.  So with sex, maybe a person still flirts inappropriately, or still stares too long at cleavage.  You know, some inappropriate drooling.  But "oops I put the plane into a nosedive killing everyone" mistakes are not what I expect from a highly trained pilot.  

Of course we are all human and I hope I'm not coming across as condemning.  People have driving passions and we're all trying to live more consciously.  Buddhism is full of moral "rules" (guidance/suggestions/hints/coolness) and is sanctuary for many people searching for a better way to live.

But why look to a high teaching like Zen Buddhism as a help with living consciously, which includes discerning morality -- if people can do it just as well or better by just using their own average mediocre moral-compass and asking, "hey is this cool?"

Why go to a high class expensive restaurant if all too often the master chef serves up something that I could have cooked better at home?

Diane,

Thanks for posting.... Since I have already provided a few perspectives concerning this on-going discussion (which usually only 'begins' again in the wake of 'another fall' into the sexual waters), in some other threads, I do not intend to provide much of a response.

While I appreciate your comments, "simply uncool", is for me, 'undercharged' when viewed in the actual emotional 'context', in which we typically find ourselves immersed, when sexual infidelity occurs; "a bit breezy", as Balder commented.

Regardless, the following sentence in your post, elicited a very "strong" emotional reaction in me: "In short, we have a long way to go until the people in charge can get us the guidelines they are talking about". And in response to that, I have to say this: Are you fucking kidding me! 

I have difficulty in even understanding how one could have consciously written that sentence without having 'tongue firmly planted in cheek'....

This sounds like a response from a government or corporate bureaucrat rather than a conscious human being who has assumed the role of "Spiritual Teacher"..... "They" really need to get their shit together, don't "they"! What happened to personal integrity, responsibility, and "conscious relationship"? Are you honestly telling me that the 'teaching community' needs "guidelines" in order to ensure ethical behaviour?

And if "they" do, then all 'teaching activities', apparently need to be suspended, or some type of 'disclaimer' with terms and conditions provided to the 'student', until "they" get the goddamn things written!

And Jesus Wept!...

This is not just sad, it is tragic; and the very fact that it was phrased this way, is, for me, deeply disappointing; hopefully it is not indicative of a systemic perspective running throughout the 'teaching community'....

And as far as compassion and forgiveness go - they are always/already forgiven, whoever "they" are.... Certainly by 'me', at least.

Respectfully Outraged,

Justin

Let's Make A World That Works.... 

Diane-

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and illuminating response. When I originally posted about Genpo Merzel, I was not seeking to condemn him, but rather was seeking ideas on how the community, both personally and as a whole, can respond to such discretions. I am glad to see that you have "transcended but included" this original line of questioning.

Perhaps, it will take both a response and a method to prevent this from happening in the first place. It is a long and tricky journey, but I sense we are on the right path. Because our Sangha is so young, hardly producing weeds in terms of ecological succession, it will be interesting to watch and participate in. I look forward to your future postings.

Thanks!

JJ 

--

Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is Form.

Love all, JJ

This arrived on my page and your comments are well articulated  Diane. Two things come up reading these blog posts:

First I feel outside the 'community' with all the discussion of what is clearly a transgression being discussed by the 'community'. Rather like overhearing gossip and to follow it to its source would be unhealthy. This sense of being an outsider is regrettable and I'm sure unintentional.

Second is the importance of the topic raised. These issues arise in all sorts of groups and organisations. I would offer the following thoughts:

Establishing written guidelines is often misinterpreted within some types of groups as unnecessary, showing lack of trust. But written, agreed guidelines and procedures offer protection for everyone.

As the following/membership grows it will give rise to both those who seek to find fault and expose weaknesses within the community and will also attract a few who may wish to gain personally (sexually, financially, status, etc.) from involvement in the community. Both are best met by agreed codes of conduct, standards, etc.

Sexual relationships between any two individuals with a gross inequality of power (adult-child/ boss-subordinate/ therapist-client/ teacher-student /and even politician-intern?) are always questionable which is why most are deemed to be professionally unethical at least. The subtle use of power in this way is never to be used lightly.

Financial affairs offer little temptation or possibility of personal gain if they are transparent. Without transparency there is always the potential for accusations of impropriety for personal gain, or indeed actual inappropriate personal gain. In this community there is no reason for anything other than maximum transparency of accounting, not even the excuse used often in business of 'competitive' disadvantage.  Integral organisations should be leading the way in this matter, standing at the forefront of transparent organisations.

The subject is important to discuss, the subtext of the discussion being carried on I would question as it feels quite insider/outsider and not good for community as such.

Lucia

 The impression I get when I read about "another one biting the dust" is that, well perhaps, the liberated teacher just doesn't give much of a fuck about people's head trips and projections concerning so called "morality." I imagine Ken and Genpo and maybe Diane hanging out, having a beer, and shaking their heads ruefully at the folly of the unenlightened. From their viewpoint the vast majority of us are deluded and enchanted by a vast and ancient shitload of Karma/Drama. And all of our lamentations, accusations, judgements, and condemnations are just a gusty storm of idiot wind blowing over a deep blue Sea.