Weinstein and Whatsisname

It makes you think, doesn’t it? Whenever a Harvey Weinstein or a Bill Cosby or a Jimmy Savile hits the media outlets. I don’t doubt for a second that most of us, whether first- or second-hand, have some sort of emotional connection with the issues these stories raise. A lot of the time, for me, its questions about what one is supposed to do – because, as we inevitably learn, these things go on for years until at least the second or third person comes forward and a snowball effect begins. Then it’s all: ‘yes, we knew about it but we didn’t know the extent’ or: ‘I tried but no one would listen’ or: ‘I didn’t want the headaches and the hassle’. And, in the meantime, others suffer at these monsters’ hands.

There’s no blame here, mind, for knowing of these things and either choosing to do nothing, or for trying and getting nowhere: it’s all perfectly understandable. I’ve done the same myself, several times. Chosen what felt like the path of least bother and looking to move on. Respecting others’ wishes, despite wanting to take action. Focusing on the brighter sides of life, and allowing time to work its amnesia-inducing magic. And in a lot of ways it seems like the right choice, because we do move on, and do forget, and life does get brighter and enjoyable once again. But then these stories pop up and the questions arise once more.

Why didn’t somebody say something? (Why didn’t I say something?)

Why didn’t they save future others from this pain? (Why didn’t I?)

And:

What would I have done in their shoes? (I am in their shoes. I still have this knowledge. What should I do now?)

To be fair, I don’t know a Harvey Weinstein or a Jimmy Savile – but I do know a guy I (and others) see as a major sleazebag who, I feel, has many times taken advantage of and used people for his own emotional and sexual gratification, justifying it in some weird ways. And not that it has ever been non-consensual, as far as I’m aware, but there is a sense of subtle manipulation and dishonesty that I find pretty disgusting.

I dunno: there’s nothing particularly clear cut in this: we’re not talking so much predator and prey, and people doing things against their will, but someone older, smart, using his wiles to be freely given what he wants.

Is there something wrong with that? Is it not just a case of a charming seducer doing what both men and women have been doing always?

But perhaps the difference is that this person works in something of a place of trust. Perhaps it’s more like a doctor or a therapist using their authority and position to take advantage of those more vulnerable and somewhat in thrall. Perhaps it’s more akin to some cult leader creating situations which, when finely tuned, can be manipulated to shift events and bodies in the way they want them moved.

Like I say, not coerced, but steered. Not forced, but skilfully persuaded. Freely given, and perhaps only years later realising that something wasn’t quite right.

These tales are legion, of course, in so-called ‘spiritual circles’: Sai Baba, Chogyam Trungpa, Franklin Jones, Bikram Choudhury, among many others – and that’s not even looking at the bona fide cult groups and religious abuses where such things are more explicit, and less likely to be dressed up in ideas of being ‘teachings’.

So, like I say, it’s not clear cut. People in situations like these are not necessarily likely to see themselves as victims. Nor do they (or those that know them) have any sense that they’re particularly vulnerable and in a place to be taken advantage of – they’re not disabled or diagnosed as mentally-challenged, and, indeed, they may feel empowered, strong, in full possession of their faculties, perfectly aware of what they’re getting into.

And yet, from another perspective, vulnerable is exactly what they are: for they are often young, naïve, in a place where all kinds of new ideas are being presented to them, but probably lacking the facilities of suitable discernment, and going along with what those who are older and seemingly wiser are telling them. Delusion and gullibility may be issues. There may have been a buy-in to a hippy ideal of freedom from inhibition and from the moral and behavioural constructs of one’s societal conditioning and upbringing, mis-sold with false promises of unrealistic results, and packaged up in the ancient and, when correctly applied, beneficial wisdoms of spiritual giants.

Finally, there may actually be a deep and genuine respect for the teacher that is not necessarily a misplaced one: for it’s not a case that all this stems from an individual in whom issues are strictly black or white, good or evil, but from the mixed bag that is a human being, made up of things both wonderful and distasteful, and a human being who may not even be fully conscious of the motivations for doing what they’re doing.

It’s a subtle thing. It’s insidious and nasty, in my eyes, but there’s little in the way of explicit actions and evidence, as there is in the high profile cases mentioned above. Things like this exist more in the realm of feelings, and may not come to light in the mind of the sufferer for many years, if at all. And given that the perpetrator seems to be a master manipulator and spinner of deceit – perhaps even buying into it himself – it’s all so easily explained away and denied.

It comes right back to the question of what could one do, and the answer, I suppose, is the answer most people arrive at: nothing. Nothing that seems like it would be effective, and nothing that one could present as a concrete case. Nothing that wouldn’t create a headache for oneself and others, and nothing that would make one’s life better. We move ourselves away from the person and, meanwhile, hope their behaviour stops. We check in every now and then and breathe a sigh of relief when it seems that it is. We think: perhaps they’ll be dead soon, and the world will be a better place. We get on with our lives and, for the most part, forget about it.

But every now and then a story explodes into the news, and all the thoughts arise, for they never really go away, and are always there, waiting to be triggered.

…

Additional details:

Q1: Who’s Jimmy Savile?

A: Well-famous British TV and radio personality who, it transpired after his death, had been up to some seriously awful deeds for decades. Of course, everybody knew, but what could they do?

Q2: Who’s the guy you’re talking about?

A: Don’t want to say.

Q3: Who’s Franklin Jones?

Totally bonkers ‘spiritual teacher’ who reckoned he was as high as anyone’s ever been. Naturally, attracted gullible followers who didn’t think it odd that his teachings involved booze, drugs, and having sex with all the pretty wives. He got away with it for decades, and lived a life of luxury on tropical islands, and then he died, still revered by many. Even very clever but also stupid Ken Wilber liked him.

Q4: Who’s Chogyam Trungpa?

One of the first Tibetan Buddhist teachers to come over to the States, a proponent of what’s called ‘crazy wisdom’ - which in some people’s eyes means you can do whatever the fuck you want and people have just got to assume it all has a higher purpose. Ya know, like booze and drugs and drink driving and ravaging people’s wives - just like the real Buddha would have done, right?

He’s written a book that a lot of people like – but I suppose a lot of good books have been written by alcoholic assholes: it’s long been a conundrum for me, whether to judge on the words, or on the mind behind the words.

I can’t remember the book but I’m sure there’s plenty that’s useful in there. Perhaps the key is to see him as a good compiler of the thoughts of others, and a guy who had some ideas, since we place no moral demands on compilers, and less on ideas men.

But, as a spritual teacher and a human, I’m gonna go with a fraud and a warning. It goes right back to good old Ramana’s words about fake students creating fake teachers. It’s Hitler and Trump. They wouldn’t get anywhere if there weren’t gullible people to promote them.

Also, from the Dhammapada (reputedly the words of the actual Buddha):

“The thoughtless man, even if he can recite a large portion of the law, but is not a doer of it, has no share in the priesthood, but is like a cowherd counting the cows of others. The follower of the law, even if he can recite only a small portion of the law, but, having forsaken passion and hatred and foolishness, possesses true knowledge and serenity of mind, he, caring for nothing in this world or that to come, has indeed a share in the priesthood.”

Q5: What do you mean by ‘hippy ideals mis-sold as bona fide spiritual teachings’?

A good example is the issue of ‘attachment’: very early on in many people’s New Age life, the idea of attachment as the enemy might take hold. So they try to destroy all their attachments, and mistakenly believe that anything someone does that they find themselves disliking is due to their attachment or their ego, which they’re supposed to be getting rid of. So when their teacher says they’re going to sleep with their wife, they feel awful but put it down to their attachment, and persuade themselves it’s just a teaching and the teacher is doing it for their own good. Then they wake up one day years later and wonder why they’re so traumatised and realise they’ve been had.

Q6: Anything else?

As mentioned above, there is the idea put forward by Ramana Maharshi that ‘the false teacher attracts false students, and vice versa’ - but I’m not sure how I feel about that. I know we have to learn discernment and caution - but, at the same time, it’s very hard to negotiate the minefield of a dishonest person skilled in manipulation and presenting just the right image. Until we learn to fully trust ourselves, I guess - but it seems like a harsh way to learn.

Q7: And some links?

Sure. Try these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

http://www.4missingwomen.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../sexual-assaults-violent.../

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Hell_(2016_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar%C3%A9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita

http://chi-ting.blogspot.com

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/186405/

Quote from The Telegraph article above, by a woman student of errant Tibetan teacher Sogyal Rinpoche, who he slept with (one of many):

“You’re chosen, which makes you feel special. Because he was my spiritual teacher I trusted that whatever he asked was in my best interests. You want to progress on the spiritual path, and by sleeping with the teacher you get a closeness to him which everyone is hankering after. I saw it as part of the teachings on the illusory nature of experience and emotions. But in fact it caused me a lot of pain that I wasn’t able to dissolve.”

And one from one of his closest ‘nuns’, whom he had physically abused for many years prior to this quote (given on camera as part of a pro-Sogyal film):

“Sometimes he’ll be like my father, like my mother, like my boss, like my friend - like my enemy, because he pushes my buttons. But I know always his heart and his motivation is so pure.

“He’s always showing me who I am and who I’m not. The buttons he presses are not who I truly am. The buttons he presses are what needs to be removed. Sometimes there’s a joy when they’re pressed, because it’s showing what needs to be peeled away. Whenever there’s any pain that’s not the real me hurting; that’s the ego that Rinpoche is trying to eradicate.”