CODES OF CONDUCT AND THE SILENCING OF LAMBS-Part One

Those familiar with some of the political wranglings and machinations of UK Buddhism will be aware of the UK Network of Buddhist Organisation's infamous Code of Conduct. The Code, which forbids member organizations and their followers from commenting publicly on other, controversial NBO member's misconduct, the signing of which is a compulsory prerequisite to full NBO membership, is discussed elsewhere on these pages.

The Code, the NBO suggest, is a practical reworking of , and therefore justified with reference to, the Five Precepts (Pancha Shila), a set of behavioral principles practiced by lay Buddhists of the Theravadin, 'Hinayana' and Mahayana traditions; as such, any behavior which contradicts their intent has been portrayed as 'un-Buddhist'. This would include, for instance, a follower of any NBO member organization reporting abuse to anyone outside the NBO.

Here, I want to suggest that such ideas show a fundamental  misunderstanding of Buddhist teaching, history and demography and that, in fact, when leaders, their  followers or their organizations behave in ways which directly contradict the Buddha's intent, the law or current moral values (and sometimes all three!),  it is entirely appropriate and in accord with the Buddha's teaching  to speak out and not to maintain a 'noble silence'. In short, as the current Dalai Lama suggested, when Buddhist teachers behave in an inappropriate manner and fail to change their ways when confronted, it is entirely correct not to hesitate  but rather to "name names in newspapers".



The Five Precepts and Their Place in Buddhist Practice

The five precepts are the fundamental moral principles of the Theravadin 'Hinayana' and Mahayana layperson alike; they are a common moral framework for the majority of the world's Buddhists. Nevertheless, while they are common to the different vehicles ( Skt yanas) of Buddhism, their importance is framed differently within the practice matrices of each.

In the Hinayana context, the five represent a code of absolute moral principles by which one abides under all circumstances. Their centrality to the religious practice of that tradition is underlined by the repetition of the first four of the five in two components of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Speech and Right Action. This repetitive emphasis demonstrates that the five are essential moral components of the Hinayana path.

The Mahayana sees itself as a tradition which incorporates and expands upon the Hinayana rather than one which stands distinct from it. As such, therein the five precepts are seen as a foundation upon which all subsequent sets of Mahayana moral codes are based. This is perhaps most evident in the process of tantric initiation, the tantras being an aspect of some Mahayana tradition's practices, which bring with the  the requirement to maintain a particular set of moral precepts. 

During the preliminary part of a tantric initiation, tantric vows are given on the basis of first having taken vows associated with the practices of the sutra based practices of the Mahayana path, the Bodhisattva vows.  However, demonstrating the fundamental importance of the Hinayana approach, these Bodhisattva vows themselves must be taken on the essential basis of the  initial receipt of Refuge and along with it, the taking of the Five Precepts Thus, the morality of the Mahayana paths of sutra and tantra is founded directly upon the maintenance of the five precepts.

However, whereas the precepts in their Hinayana context are moral absolutes, and must be observed regardless of circumstance, in the Mahayana the precepts are superseded by the moral relativism of the doctrine of upaya or 'skilful means'. This doctrine of skilful means suggests that under certain circumstances,  in particular where love and compassion deem it necessary, it is permissible to perform what are normally considered non-virtuous actions of body and speech. Thus, the Bodhisattva Bhumi of Asanga indicates that a bodhisattva may lie to save others, steal the proceeds of criminal acts and even kill a person about to murder his own parents, so that the perpetrator of the negative act will not experience the karmic consequences associated with their actions.

For beings who practice the Mahayana path, this concept of skilful means is imbued as a moral obligation during the bodhisattva vow ceremony, wherein the practitioner promises to 'break the seven non-virtues of body and speech where love and compassion deem it necessary', the 11th of the 46 branch vows according to the tradition of the Profound View transmitted via the Indian saint Nagarjuna.

While the doctrine of skilful means is an integral part of the Mahayana approach, it is important to note that it has its precedents in the Hinayana Sangiti Sutta in the Digha Nikaya and furthermore, according to Gombrich "the exercise of skill to which it refers....... is of enormous importance in the Pali Canon.’’ It would be wrong therefore to suggest that the concept of upaya is a Mahayana one since its application can be found in both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions.

Mahayana tantric vows, being a bodhisattva practice, also incorporate the concept of upaya. In particular, the doctrine is manifest in the 10th root tantric vow , which is a promise 'not to show love towards malevolent beings' who are, commentaries explain, individuals who harm the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Of course, this does not mean that we should wish unhappiness and suffering to befall such individuals or forsake the wish to become enlightened for their sake . However to act or even speak lovingly of them constitutes a root tantric downfall. The vow makes it further incumbent upon the holder, while motivated by love and compassion, to stop their destructive behavior, even if it means resorting to forceful methods. 

Arguments Against Upaya

Of course, despite the idea of upaya being clearly locateable in Hinayana scripture, there will be those who argue that the practice is a Mahayana accretion and as such does not represent the true word of the Buddha. Typically, such individuals argue that only the teachings of the Hinayana Theravadins are genuine since they were his actual word.

This however only demonstrates  ignorance of history insofar as the Theravadin Pali Canon was itself only committed to writing in the 1st century BCE at the Fourth Council in Sri Lanka, around four centuries after his death. Moreover, the Councils themselves were held to agree on contentious issues. There was then, a degree of disagreement over the Buddha's intent for the hundreds of years preceding the Fourth Council. The assertion that the Pali Canon is the only true word of the Buddha is therefore not certain and not borne out by history. Rather, it is merely a weapon in the armory of zealots and sectarian bigots.

Amazingly, these same individuals argue that the Mahayana sutras and tantras cannot possibly be the Buddhas teaching because they did not emerge in written form until the first and  third centuries CE respectively. So, while they are quite happy to accept the authenticity of their own scriptures despite their not being recorded until four centuries after Buddha lived, they declare the Mahayana sutras and tantras inauthentic on the basis of their not appearing in written form for a similarly considerable period.

In fact, one very obvious reason the tantras could have remained invisible historically for so long lies in the Sanskrit synonym for tantra, 'Guhya mantra'.  literally 'Secret instrument of thought', the important word here being 'secret'.

Although it might be hard to believe in these days when the shelves of  the alternative therapy section of most bookshops are festooned with  'tantric' sex guides alongside Kelsang Gyatso's 'Guide to Dakini Land' , there was once a time when tantric practice was considered secret,  indeed the efficacy of said practice was believed to relate directly to the  maintenance of secrecy concerning it. 

Is it so hard to accept then, that these teachings were transmitted to the Buddha's disciples in secret and that this secrecy was maintained for the centuries following his death? In Western culture, for most of it's existence, the Catholic Church performed all  rituals and wrote all copies of scripture in Latin, which was understood by almost no one outside the Church. Is it really fanciful to suggest that a similar policy of secrecy to this might have existed in the Buddhist tantric system?

Again, how much more effective would such a policy of secrecy have been if it was based on a system of solely oral transmission, as was the way in the earliest days of Buddhism across the traditions?

In summary, the five precepts, while common to the Hinayana and Mahayana systems of sutra and tantra, each of which is an equally valid Buddhist approach, are not moral absolutes which should not be contradicted under any circumstance. Rather, in the Mahayana traditions of both sutra and tantra, their maintenance must be considered within the context of a consideration of the particular situation in which they are applied and this, in turn, is an idea which can be clearly located in Hinayana, Theravadin Buddhist scripture.

Buddhist Demography

The innappropriateness of the NBO's application of inflexible rules supposedly derived from the five precepts is further apparent when one considers Buddhist demographics, both worldwide and nationally.

According to a 2004 US State Department report, there are somewhere between 350 and 500 million Buddhists worldwide; around 35% of these are Theravadin, 'Hinayana' Buddhists, while Mahayana followers of sutra and tantra systems compose the remaining 65%.

This demograph is further reflected in the UK Buddhist 'scene' which, though having its roots in the Theravada, is now dominated by groups primarily of Mahayana origin and their contemporary derivatives.In short, in the UK and Western Buddhist family, the Mahayana tradition is by far the bigger brother.

Perception of this reality has been somewhat distorted in the UK due to several, related factors: initial British empirical encounters with the East, an early academic tendency for Western academics to focus on the Theravada, and the UK educational system, which focuses primarily on the practices of the same, while subsequently portraying Mahayana Buddhism as a later, somewhat eccentric accretion.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the majority of Buddhists in the World, as well as those in the UK and the West, are followers of the  Mahayana traditions, traditions which, while considering the five precepts to be of fundamental importance to their religious practice, also consider it appropriate to relax their adherence where wisdom  tells them  that love and compassion render it appropriate.

So if that's how the majority of the World's Buddhists behave, why does the NBO restrict its members' right to do so? Doesnt it look suspiciously like their leaders are distorting Buddhist principles   to protect their own controversial organisations from criticism and bad publicity? Or are they afraid about damage to Buddhism's 'reputation'? Looks like Catholic-style cover ups are the way forward after all.

Sectarianism in the UK:

'My Bigotry is Purer than Yours'

Some years ago, in 1999, at an audience for Europe-based Tibetans with the Dalai Lama at the Wembley Conference Centre, I was struck by the Dalai Lama's rather curt tone toward his fellow countrymen when he chastised them for speaking of themselves as Gelugpas, Sakyapas, Nyingmapas or Kagyupas (the main sects of Tibetan Buddhism), Such a narrow vision of oneself, he said, was destructive to  Dharma and to the Tibetan cause.

 Clearly, this form of destructive thinking is not new among Tibetans. It is said that the 19th century Nyingma master Patrul Rinpoche would answer the question, 'Which tradition do you follow?' with the retort, 'The Buddha's tradition".Irony certainly wasn't lost on him.

A rare photo of the incomparable Patrul Rinpoche (1808-1887)

Tibetan Sectarianism

In fact, throughout Tibetan history, religion and sectarianism have been inextricably, almost indistinguishably linked, ever since (and probably before) the different sects came into existence. Indeed the centuries following the dark age of the non-Buddhist king, Langdarma, were like a long-running, 'no holds barred' bare knuckle fight between them, up until the 17th century, when the Great Fifth Dalai Lama 'imposed peace and unity' by ordering his Mongol troops to attack Kagyu followers, and to "annihilate any  traces of them, even their names.” and to make their "children and grandchildren like eggs smashed against  rocks".  Nice!

Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682)

The fun didnt stop there however, and by the mid 1930s, under the instruction of Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo and accompanied by his pet demon Shugden, enthusiastic (that's a nice word for 'fundamentalist zealot') Gelug followers ran rampage in Nyingma, Kagyu and even Bonpo monasteries , destroying their statues, sacred images and scriptures alike. All in the name of 'purity'.

Pabongka, 'He who ate the momos', Gelug master and infamous demon worshipper

And so it was that, when the Chinese entered Eastern Tibet in the early 50s, they met with hardly any resistance at all from the overwhelmingly non-Gelug populus. As far as these were concerned, it was high time for a change in who held the power in Lhasa. Their contempt was mirrored by those Gelugpas who were based in the East and who, on receiving instructions from the 14th Dalai Lama to perform wrathful invocations of Padmasambhava, patron saint of both Tibet and the Nyingma tradition so as to dispel Chinese invaders,   refused to perform the rituals because they were 'not Gelug'. Even the Tibetan Kashag, its parliament composed solely of Gelug followers, decided against implementing the advice of the great non-sectarian master Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro for dispelling the invaders since it entailed the veneration of a particular form of Guru Padmasambhava.

Guru Padmasambhava in the posture known as "Nangsi Zilnon" or "Complete Victorious Triumph over all Illusory Appearances".

Thus it was that the demon of sectarianism, along with its friends arrogance and bigotry, led directly to the downfall of Tibet. Indeed, it would be correct to say that the divisions between the sectarian followers of the different sects (that's not all of them, by the way) were responsible, to a significant degree, for the downfall of that nation as well as for all of the suffering and misery we see there today. Little wonder then, that the Chinese are pouring significant funds into the construction of Shugden temples in Tibet, India and Taiwan, all  in order to maintain the current status quo.

The Chinese flag flies over the Potala

Tibetan Buddhist Sectarianism in the West: The Cancer Spreads

 Based on these experiences, you would think that Tibetans and Western, Tibetan Buddhist converts, would have learned a valuable lesson with regard to the arrogance and bigotry that caused the downfall of the motherland. But you'd be wrong.

My first experience of this was, coincidentally, when I first encountered the then Gelug, FPMT teacher,  Kelsang Gyatso  (I dont use the term 'Geshe' or 'Rinpoche' here as the jury is still very much out on both), who taught that the Madhyamaka Prasangika view taught by the founder of the tradition, Tzong Ka Pa, was  'The highest philosophical view taught in Tibet'. Of course, never having been to Tibet in the period before the invasion (I wasnt born), how was I to know any different? Not doubting Kelsang even for a moment (as appears to be the way-'Suspend all judgement, all ye who enter here'), it wasnt long before I began to develop the arrogant, bigoted and ignorant view of myself as a follower of by far the  most superior version of the Buddha's teaching, not duped by the inferior heresies of the Sakyas, Kagyus or Nyingmas, or any of those deluded Theravadin Hinayanists. 

Such sectarian views echoed perfectly the poisonous sentiments of those espoused by bigots of the four sects in pre-invasion Tibet and have already begun to sew the same destructive discord here in the Western Buddhist world, as they did in past in the East. 

However, whereas before the justificatory basis for bigotry was one's sect or philosophical perspective, in the West, this poison has taken on a new guise, that being the tendency, not to view oneself as a follower of the Buddha (as Dza Patrul would no doubt have advised), but instead, to view oneself as a member of any particular Buddhist organization.

I say 'any' because this is a problem for all of us, not just cultish zealots. We may have encountered followers of, for example SGI, the NKT, the FWBO/TBC or Dhammakaya International, who are overwhelmed by the glory of their own, particular party membership but, in fact, this poison of partisan thought goes much further to the point where, I believe, seeing oneself as a member of any particular Buddhist group other than the worldwide, universal Sangha is a destructive poison, both from the perspective of the existence of Buddhism in the West, as well as from that of our own personal development.

Organizational Arrogance: 'The Chosen Few' 

Once we have the concept of 'my organization'  this creates the image of  'other organizations' and, because we are sure we've found the best one (even though we didnt check out any others, but  it must be true because the guru said so, and anyway, everyone else who follows him confirms it) then automatically, the others are worse, inferior, shallow, inauthentic and/or impure. Ive even seen this between different organizations that follow the same lineage of teachings.'Wow, look how f****ed up they are! Arent we just so fortunate to have our teacher; at least he managed to keep things pure!'

Now, all this may  even be true on a relative level, but one has to ask, what does thinking like this have to do with becoming Buddha? I mean, if I squint hard, I can maybe make some sense of it, but isnt this just reinforcing our arrogance and spiritual egotism? When everybody else is so wrong, then arent we just the clever little one who got it right? In fact, isn't thinking like this is a not very subtle manifestation of Spiritual materialism that seemingly spiritual mind which  actually turns the pursuit of religion into an ego building and confusion creating mind game?

Whenever we start to feel  a sense of pride or specialness about our status, whether it be internally, about some state of mind we might have glimpsed or externally, about the people, group or tradition we follow, we are experiencing an aspect of spiritual  ego, not our Buddha nature, because we believe we have found something that makes us different to, better than others. But we arent really that different and we certainly arent that special!

Thinking we're special can have dreadful consequences

And, once we are on the side of purity, we soon begin to fight the good fight, usually by telling everyone else how lost they are or how wrong they've got it. One need only listen to the insane ramblings of NKT followers, especially when theyre wearing their Shugden hats, to see how sad this can be. Remember? The only true followers of Guru Tzong Ka Pa (who didnt practice Shugden), the only true followers of the Gelug , who practice it without mixing it with politics (Or at least I think thats what the placard said?)

The NKT, oh sorry, W$$, gently reinforcing the purity of Buddhism and creating the causes for enlightenment by following their humble guru's instructions and screaming 'liar' at the Dalai Lama (Ed: Does it really work like that?)

But seriously, we dont have to look to the behavior of loud-mouthed bullies and zealots (no offence meant) to see this type of thinking manifest. In fact, such arrogant ideas of spiritual superiority are often at home in our own backyard, among the followers of the supposedly genuine traditions. So what makes us any better (apart from the fact that we dont dine daily with the devil)?

Anyone for entrails?

From an inward-facing perspective, being a member of a community or organization gives one a ready made framework onto which one can project a hierarchy. And, once you have a hierarchy, you can start to imagine who and what you are and exactly where you stand in it. 

'All disciples are equal, but some disciples are more equal than others'

You might be an 'important person', perhaps because you hold an important administrative position or do certain things for a teacher (all sorts of 'things', it seems!). I remember feeling I was something very special, much more important than others, when I got the job of cleaning the faeces from the tail fur of my teacher's dog, for instance.

Either way, whether you achieve the dizzy heights of dog's arse wiper or are just an ordinary beginner, once you are 'in', you have your foot on the first rung of the ladder of ambition: like the chap I knew who told his teacher that one day,he wanted to be 'a lama' (I think Im spelling that right?) Just think, 'One day, you too could be running your own Dharma centre'! Mmmm: cant wait.

The point is, while fulfilling such roles is no doubt of great karmic consequence and importance, and while those who fulfil such roles are deserving of respect (most of the time), feeling that this makes oneself important, or worse, aspiring to be important, is nothing other than ego and has nothing whatsoever to do with Dharma. 

'Wow! Is that really me?'

Some people even go so far as to push themselves into the teacher's presence at every opportunity,  (even though stalking is illegal in most states) just so that others can observe them basking in the teachers glorious light. Why? Because, if they are near, or more importantly seen to be near spiritual people, clambering around the upper echelons of the imagined charismatic hierarchy, it makes them 'spiritual ' too. 

'The incredible, self-inflating lama', T$em Tulku (Who 'doesnt practice $hugden anymore' honest),  in his latest money-spinning guise, with members of his burgeoning & gullible  groupie army of adoring benefactor$

Click here
& here

Unfortunately though, standing next to the Commander-in-Chief doesnt purify the mind or  grant one any 'powers' (assuming he has any to give); what it really boils down to when it comes to getting enlightened is putting bone to stone, pushing beads, and resting in the nature-there are no short cuts, no freebies and contact highs are nothing more than that: highs. And high turns to low (and being 'in' means one day, youll be 'out')Ouch! 

There are even megalomaniacs who appoint themselves leaders of their own little empires, then instruct naive and gullible disciples to behave in ways which totally contradict the Buddha's intent, all in the name of spreading His (though usually, their) word,  or perhaps in that of purity and 'tradition'. Like fools who believe war is the cause of peace, their followers practice negative actions with the intent of creating 'virtue'.While their disciples book their tickets for a long term stay in the lower realms, these deeply holy men adopt spiritual poses as they bank the proceeds. 

Kelsang Gyatso,  founder of the NKT, puppet master extraordinaire and successful real estate developer

Truth is, seeing oneself as anything more than just an average 'Joe' is a very dangerous game to play in Dharma and Dharma communities and usually means youre cruising for a bruising. According to the current Dalai Lama, even seeing oneself as a 'Buddhist' (for which the Tibetans dont have a word, by the way), is an obstacle to  seeing the sameness of oneself and others,  a fundamental footstep on the path to the development of compassion. How then, can one possibly come closer to truth and enlightenment  while simultaneously seeing oneself as an important member of the spiritual creme de la creme,  a senior officer in the army of the righteous?

In reality, we are all equal in the fact that we are born alone, die alone, and no one experiences our pain but us=that's who we all are and that's our real 'community'. Now, while this might sound a little miserable, you can wipe your tears because it actually provides a sombre sense of solitude which can act as a starting point where one can begin the important task ahead: becoming Buddha for others. If you realize you are on your own and that nobody is going to do it for you, then you also realize that your destiny is in your hands. All you have to do is follow the instructions!

'Decay is inherent in all compounded things, work out your own salvation with diligence'.

Alternatively, you can invest all of your time in proving you are an important person and that your organization is the best. Of course, it wont be of any positive, lasting benefit, and will certainly contribute to divisiveness and the destruction of the Buddha's teaching but, hey, at least it will feed your ego for a lifetime. After all, isnt that the most important thing?

Any cap we wear, any flag we fly, becomes the cause of division and conflict





The UK Network of Buddhist 

Organisations: 

The Gentle, Persuasive Art of Flying 

Flags of Convenience

If the roots are poisonous, the fruit will be poisonous

The Network of Buddhist Organisations took shape as a result of meetings convened by the Jamyang Buddhist Centre in London in 1993 for the purpose of inviting the Dalai Lama to the UK. After the visit, the interest of many members diminished. Many, that is, apart from Soka Gakkai UK and the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (Latterly, the 'Triratna Buddhist Community')

Realising the significant value of the NBO corporate label, representatives of these two highly controversial groups quickly manoeuvred themselves into dominant positions on the NBO's governing body. For them, the NBO label was a very convenient way of maintaining and enhancing status in the UK Buddhist arena, despite mounting criticism of their own, individual organizations nationally and internationally, among Buddhists and in the media. The remaining founding members'  intent was, they claimed,  the promotion of "greater openness to dialogue and increased co-operation between the many different Buddhist organisations", a somewhat surprising one since both groups had long been widely seen as exhibiting strong isolationist tendencies.

The Network's movers and shakers quickly turned their attention to building credibility via dialogue with other faiths and consultations with Government and other public bodies, including the UK Charity Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Nationally, the NBO involved itself in the work of the Inter Faith Network UK and internationally in the European Buddhist Union.

"Honest, I just wanna be your friend"

NBO membership is scattered over a number of different bodies varying from the traditional to the popular: some of its most influential groups are considered New Religious Movements, with some commentators even going so far as to refer to these as 'cults'. Such a mixture is not surprising in light of the fact that membership is open to any organization which calls itself 'Buddhist' as did, for example, Shoko Asahara's Aum Shinrikyo.

"Om mani padme....kill!"

In mid 2006,  an internet campaign alleged that the NBO was a 'self appointed' organization which, despite how it presented itself, held no official representative status, and that it was furthermore dominated by three controversial New Religious Movements, Soka Gakkai International, the FWBO and latterly, the New Kadampa Tradition, each of which was employing the NBO as a 'flag of of convenience' after significant criticism of their methods. The long standing chair of the NBO for example, was the leading figure in Soka Gakkai UK. Its educational advisory group was run by a senior member of the FWBO ( an organization with a history of widespread sexual abuse spanning three decades);  NKT representatives had become increasingly active in guiding the NBO's chaplaincy work.

'Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw.'

The campaign further alleged that, while the NBO portrayed "itself as the representative voice of Buddhism in the UK", it had "almost no ethnic Asian Buddhist members", the NBO Development worker's blog speaking for instance of, " ...the many (UK) Buddhist groups of Asian origin...not...well represented on...forums such as the NBO".

This campaign led to more than a dozen Parliamentary Questions being raised, firstly about the NBO itself and whether the UK Government had done anything to assess its representative status and further, over the appropriateness of Government granting public funds to the three, already extremely wealthy New Religious Movements listed, particularly in light of allegations of 'cultic behaviour' against them, funding which in part, somewhat astoundingly,  was given to support their work with children in schools.

Parliament in the dark, again.

It emerged in response to these questions that not one government departments had made any attempt whatsoever to assess the NBO's representative status. The Government further indicated that, despite the allegations of cultic behaviour, the three organizations  'fulfilled their funding criteria' and the grants would therefore stand. 

Moreover, one government minister claimed that the responsibility for vetting such organizations before allowing them access to minors lay with Schools and Local Authorities, despite the fact that no such explicit government directive exists, vetting schemes only applying to individuals rather than organizations. As the law stands, a member of any illegal or disreputable organization can lecture to children in schools, as long as he has no criminal record.

The NBO issued a response vehemently denying the allegations, both those concerning its representative status and those which alleged cultic behaviour against its three prominent members, claiming the allegations were 'potentially libelous'. Tellingly, it disingenuously asserted that previous condemnations of the FWBO for, amongst other things, systematic sexual abuse had all been 'thoroughly discredited'. In the public domain, on the other hand, the same allegations went unchallenged and indeed have repeatedly been confirmed as accurate. The NBO response also listed some, but not all, of the Parliamentary Questions raised concerning the organization itself and  its members; most notably,  several questions concerning cultic behaviour which mentioned the names of specific member groups were seemingly deliberately omitted.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but........
except where the truth might incriminate me'.

Out of the Frying Pan

In the Spring of 1998, the NBO received a request for membership from the British Buddhist New Religious Movement, the New Kadampa Tradition, a group which had only recently been involved in political protests against the Dalai Lama. Several NBO members considered the NKTs activities incompatible with the NBOs stated aim of promoting dialogue and harmony. Nevertheless, the NBO board saw significant benefits to having such a major player on side; as Lyndon Johnson observed, it was perhaps “Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in". Moreover, the membership of Britain's largest and fastest growing Buddhist organization would certainly contribute to the NBOs perceived credibility and finances.

So it was that, with the help and support of the FWBO (whose PR team acted as consultants to the NKT in its efforts to rebuild its image after the  Dalai Lama demos), the controversial group was accepted into the NBO. Consequently, a number of other groups severed their relations with the body: 30% of those groups defining themselves as of Tibetan origin left at this time. Indeed, the NKTs ill fated membership was to have a siginificant, long-term, and irreparably damaging effect on the NBO.

Safety Nets, Codes of Conduct and the Great Gagging Order Revolt

Subsequent to the NKTs admission, the NBO launched two important initiatives. The first of these was their 'Safety Net', for those who had 'bumped into Buddhism and come away badly bruised'  or, more plainly put, 'those who had encountered controversial Buddhist leaders and groups and come away physically, sexually and psychologically abused'. 

(mentioning no names)

 The Home Office funded academic body 'Inform' (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) confirmed that concerns were expressed to them that the service offered by the NBO could be a way of certain groups (again, mentioning no names) concealing abuse from the public and keeping controversies out of the spotlight of public scrutiny.

The NBO's development worker appeared to confirm this when he blogged:

'We do not want placards on the streets and public displays of Buddhists abusing Buddhists. Neither do we want damaging media exposées of abusive or coercive activity within Buddhist organisations, or anonymous and scurrilous letters denouncing Buddhist groups to prominent national organisations. "

To some, this seemed somewhat akin to the Catholic Church's approach to abuse: hush it up, deal with it 'in-house' and, no matter what, dont let the Press get hold of it. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama's advice on the same issue of abuse was to "Name names in newspapers!" 

The Vatican's Index of Prohibited Books 1564

Of course, everyone is free to choose between these two different approaches: that advocated by the development worker of an organization with a number of members accused of sexual, psychological and physical abuse, an approach which has decimated the Catholic Church and cost it millions in legal costs and compensation payments, OR that prescribed by one seen by many as a living Buddha. Whether one chooses to listen to the Pope or the Dalai Lama is entirely a matter of personal choice, after all.

Who ya gonna call?

The other significant initiative launched by the NBO during this period was its 'Code of Conduct' The proposed code came in the wake of demonstrations against the Dalai Lama by members of the Western Shugden Society, the political face of the New Kadampa Tradition. These demonstrations were organized by Kelsang Gyatso, directed by NKT leaders internationally, and demonstrators were nearly all NKT devotees, accompanied in some instances by Chinese students, holding the same placards and chanting the same slogans.

Chinese protesters and NKT monks demonstratng in Nottingham 2008. Kelsang Gyatso denies any involvement of the NKT or any Chinese connection

 The Code of Conduct, which echoed the censorial sentiments above, stated: “In order to maintain harmony and promote Buddhist teachings in the UK, as a Buddhist organisation and member of the NBO we undertake the following: a) To observe the ethical standards as exemplified by the Five Precepts in all our activities. b) To undertake that our members will not defame or attack each other’s organisations or teachers in public or through the media. c) If disagreements arise between NBO organizations or with other organizations or groups, every attempt will be made to resolve them through internal processes or through private discussion and mediation.''

Clauses b) and c) were clear attempts to stifle further political posturing in the media by the NKT/WSS. Furthermore, they would have the effect of stifling all public criticism of any of the NBOs controversial member organizations from anywhere within the NBOs Buddhist membership. In effect, the NBO was issuing a gagging order directly to its own members.

In response, the NKT threatened legal action if the NBO continued to pursue their intent to impose the Code, as they considered it (quite correctly for once!) an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, a somewhat ironic accusation considering the repeated threats of legal action against all critics issued by the NKT, along with  the online antics of NKT supporters on such sites as Wikipedia, where all critical information is instantly removed by a team of dedicated editors on an hourly basis (Try it; see how long it lasts!).

Are we in China?

Notably, this was a telling move by the NKT: the NBO was clearly attempting to restrict the activities of the WSS with its new clauses and, as we have seen, the NKT denied any connection whatsoever with the WSS. So, why the NKT leaderahip should feel the need to assert themselves on the part of a group with which they purportedly had nothing whatsoever to do was something of a mystery.

Nevertheless, in March 2009 the NKT stated that any attempt to impose the Code of Conduct was a restriction of freedom of speech  and that, if necessary, they would engage in legal action against the NBO and wrote to them to that effect. 

The problem with legal action for the NKT however, was that the NBO had few assets, (despite the significant funds, amounting to tens of thousands of pounds it and its wealthy members had received from the taxpayer). To sue the NBO then, would be a fruitless exercise: the costs would outweigh significantly any amount of compensation the NKT might ultimately receive. In effect, the NBO's lack of capital protected it from being sued.

The threat terrified NBO exec members however, wealthy and impoverished alike, when they realised they and their own, individual organizations could each be held financially liable should the NKT sue. 

Aaaaaaaarggghhh!!

Thus it was that, at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the NBO executive in March 2010, the NBO declared its intention to dissolve and reinvent itself as a limited company. Its final act before dissolution was to vote on the signing of the Code of Conduct as a membership prerequisite. The motion was passed. The NKT's representative stated that the NKT could not accept the Code of Conduct; consequently, it did not renew its membership.

And so, a body which seemingly represents UK Buddhists nationally, no longer counts among its members Britain's largest New Buddhist Religious Movement. Moreover, because of the Draconian code, which clearly restricts the basic human right to freedom of speech, the membership of several other important groups such as the Buddhist Society remains in question, though for some reason, names remain on the NBO  members list on its website, which now qualifies its members list as 'a List of NBO Supporting Organisations, (including full members)' In other words, the short, ever-dwindling list of the NBO's 18 'members' includes some groups who arent even members! Robert Bluck's research on Buddhism in Britain. which estimated that there were 635 Buddhist groups in the UK (a number which, unlike the NBOs decreasing membership, has significantly increased since the research emerged in 2001) certainly puts the illusion of the NBO's representative status in perspective. Here's the graphic:

Actually,its not even 5%! Nuff said?

More Information Control!

'Once you get started, oh it's hard to stop
When you get down, ain't no turnin' back'
                                               Rufus

At the end of April 2010, much of the above critical information appeared on the Network of Buddhist Organisation's Wikipedia page.

Within days, a group of editors, including one calling himself 'NBO secretary' (whose name soon disappeared from the edit history for reasons not stated), set about removing any hint of this critical information. Censors were then joined by the infamous 'Empty Mountains', chief web spin doctor for the NKT and principal contributor to their  own 'totally neutral' Wikipedia page.

Thus it was that, within a matter of hours, any hint of controversy disappeared in the mists of deception. Gone was any reference to Parliamentary Questions concerning allegations of cultish behaviour against the FWBO and Soka Gakkai; the only reference to the NKT which remained implied that those Tibetan groups who left the NBO when they demonstrated against the Dalai Lama in 1996 were 'sectarian'. The references were summarily removed because, according to Empty Mountains, they were 'not relevant'.

Gone was all reference to the struggle with the NKT over the "voluntary" Code of Conduct (which MUST be signed as a prerequisite to full membership) and which led to the the group renouncing its NBO membership. The information could not be included, according to these editors, because it was 'not in the public domain'.

Similarly, references to the Buddhist Society's renunciation of its membership, along with the concerns of a number of other prominent UK Buddhist groups, due to "representational issues, accountability and democratic process" were eradicated. The names of ex NBO members remain on the NBO website however, at a time when NBO seniors are attempting to rebuild the group after the difficulties caused by the NKT. Finally, all links to webpages critical of the NBO were removed, the only remaining 'external link' on the page leading to the NBO's own homepage.

Epilogue: The Thin End of the Wedge?

These days,  in part as a result of the NKT debacle, NBO Ltd seems to be in a state of confusion and disarray; like rabbits frozen in a car's headlamps, they dont seem  able to work out quite what to do next. 

Again, with what appears to be an increasingly disenchanted and dwindling membership, any claims to representative status have become transparent and meaningless. With the ship sinking, some of the crew must be wondering what was the point of setting sail on this Titanic effort in the first place.

However, being an officer on the bridge of the NBO's now sinking ship has not been without its benefits, as is apparent if one peruses the crew list of those navigating the good ship, the SS European Buddhist Union. For there, at the helm, and captaining the ship is Admiral (sorry, newly elected EBU President)  Jamie Cresswell, founding member and Chair of the NBO for a decade and, entirely coincidentally, Director of  the SGI UKs Institute of Oriental Philosophy and Centre for Applied Buddhism at Soka Gakkai headquarters in Kent. 

'I see no ships!'

Alongside him is Chief Petty Officer and NBO board member Dhammarati who holds the Chair of the EBUs Sangha committee. He is also chair of the FWBO/Triratna College of Public Preceptors and is widely touted as the next Sangharakshita (Ouch!) While there is little doubt that both of these are  excellent orators, administrators and networkers, the status and origin of both certainly raises questions about the EBU's judgement and choice of direction.

Why, for instance, has the decision been made to place someone from an organization with a decades-long history of leaders sexually abusing newcomers,  a group identified as having employed insider doctrines which resulted in young men's suicides and dozens of cases of mental illness, facts it still disingenuously denies and conceals, in charge of Buddhist community relations? Why has the EBU chosen to offer its leadership  to the seniormost figure in SGI UK, when SGI itself is officially recognized as a cult by the French Government and is considered highly controversial in Japan and only nominally Buddhist by the Japan Buddhist Federation, the body which represents 90% of Japan's bona fide Buddhist organizations?

An anti SGI demonstration in Japan

 Finally, why is it that these two senior figures from highly controversial Buddhist groups, both of which have been repeatedly referred to as 'cults', organizations with a combined age which can be measured in decades, are standing at the helm of a 2, 500 year old religious tradition? Is this really the direction the EBU thinks European Buddhism should take? If a minor deviation at the beginning of a journey results in  missing one's desired goal by many miles in the future, where might such appointments lead Buddhism in the years ahead?

Fasten your safety belts: we may be in for a bumpy ride!