Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Is Diamond Way Buddhism a CULT??
red
typing_sound wrote in buddhistgroup
I think this is quite an important topic, since one of our members is thinking of going to a Diamond Way Buddhism centre. I did a little searching, and there are some testimonies of women being sexually harassed, and a lot of claims that the tradition is inauthentic and a cult. If you guys could help me, by either doing some research or sharing what you know about the tradition, that would really help me out! We don't want one of our members taking the poison cool-aid mixture, am I right?! It's time for Community Action! Dun-duh-duuhhh! Lol

  • 1
So, going back to my earlier point, you must have personal experience of the FWBO to be criticising it?

I know people in the FWBO, they are not cult members. They're good people.

Please don't criticise what you don't know and haven't experienced.

FWBO aknowledged that they had big problems with one of their centers and they closed it.

But their former leader has never aknowledged that his teachings about women, heterosexuality and family life might be interpreted in a way that lead to these abuses.

He has never aknowledged that he himself might have had an unethical behaviour.

Although the most blattant problems exposed in the Guardian were corrected, their leader still holds that his actions were totally ethical.

When a leader think that he is blameless, then a spiritual movement is on a dangerous path.

It's not all black and white

For me the first question is what is the teacher's lineage? Who gave him/her the transmission of the realised state of mind passed on from the Buddha to our time, who certified his realisation and who instructed him to teach?
I mean, it's not the only question, but it should be question #1 if you want to have a cat in hell's chance of finding something reliable.

Re: It's not all black and white

I agree.

In the particular case of FWBO, their former leader Sanghrakshita doesn't seem to have belonged to any authentic lineage long enough to be considered a spiritual heir to any one.

Even if he was very knowledgeable about Buddhism in general he had not refined his ethics under a teacher/master/guru guidance.

As Ocha would say he needed to practice his precepts and care more about Vinaya.

And without ethics refinement harm is bound to follow.

In short, Sangharakshita was not enlightened, but acted as if he was and this did cause harm to some people around him.

Re: It's not all black and white

I agree too. The question of lineage and authorisation to teach is actually the most important question.

  • 1
?

Log in