..."'sopachochog' is the name I was given when taking the bodhisattva vow. It means 'supreme dharma patience,' which points to my greatest obstacle. We all have inner obstacles to be worked with and hopefully overcome, and these are the working ground of the spiritual path."
My good wishes to you along your path, and I admire your openness, and I beg your patience for a moment, but I disagree that "the statement made by 'Eklutna' is not only inaccurate...but it overlooks the fact that Bo is someone who has clearly followed a spiritual path." I believe Eklutna was referring to an earlier point by point reply by Bo Lozoff in this online blog (Meanwhile, Bo himself, after his one lengthy diatribe denying all allegations and pointing the finger at others, remains silent) and not to the contents of the article itself, where you note, "Bo admitted to quite a lot." Eklutna made several references, as did others, to the spiritual path Bo was following. But I am confused that having admitted to "quite a lot," and giving various reasons why this was not predatory or deviant behavior, and yet reading the testimony of various people who feel violated by his actions, you (and perhaps others) would want to pass it off as, "people are far more likely to learn from their mistakes and make positive changes than those who have not acquired the tools and learned how to use them." How long does it take to recognize mistakes and seek to acquire the tools to learn from them, if the mistakes are allowed to become a pattern, and the pattern is allowed to become a pathology?
In all fairness--and I am trying not to be judgmental, but objective--it does seem you have an ax to grind, perhaps unconsciously persuaded by the similarities between what happened to you on one occasion and what Bo is alleged to have done repeatedly. I have noticed that this is the case with other writers here, as well. Use of phrases such as, "...the informal grand jury," "...the relative credibility of the various witnesses involved," and so on suggest you have a bias against "two groups among Bos accusers the women with whom Bo had some sort of sexual encounters" (which as I recall were rather specific in description and not "some sort of") "and their supporters, and second, the ex-con who has weighed in." Your "considerable experience with both of these situations, both as observer and participant" may have biased your reading of the article and the letters to his forum.
The case in point is supplied by you in your anecdote where you relate being "accused by three women of gross sexual misconduct." You conclude that it was just "a case of group hysteria, a squirrely tendency among some women to play the anti-feminist 'vulnerable female' card, an acquired habit of perceiving males as sexual predators, and the projection of ones own dysfunctional emotions onto others." That litany of stereotypes is very judgmental in tone and intent, and says more about you and your attitudes than you might think it does.
I can only conclude that you do your cause harm, when you look at the "black and white in these matters." I agree that "all cases are unique" in so far as date, time, and location, but the overlying elements are the same. Based on your one experience of being falsely accused (in your words, given that you apparently acted as your own judge and jury), you do "jump to conclusions based on such testimony," and want to excuse Bo's actions as the actions of one "in the role of a spiritual teacher." It just does not seem logical to attribute it to something like, when "the spiritual tradition being transmitted is either tantric Buddhism or tantric Hinduism, in which sexual activity is very much included as part of the higher teachings and practices (a vastly overstated assumption, by the way)." I agree that "this is bound to lead to confusion and misinterpretation," and the measure of a true leader is to recognize when one's own actions are creating that in a follower or adherent and adjust accordingly.
As for the other category to which you refer, the "ex-con(s)," you reveal another bias when you say, "What I can tell you from experience is that cons comprise a far greater percentage of pathological liars than any other segment of society." But not all ex-cons spout off "uncorroborated testimony;" sometimes what they say can be investigated and verified, and then where does that leave Truth? And by the way, you yourself reveal that you are an ex-con. What conclusion can we draw from this?
I don't know about the recidivism rate angle, but it is perhaps something that could be fact-checked, if one can reasonably believe the facts or statistics were accurately reported. As sad as it is, I believe the aspects of females being sexually misused is just the tip of the accusatory iceberg, and there may be a greater financial mass below the water line. Which would make this even sadder, if the brave women and men who submitted themselves to the embarrassing questions of the reporter and the members of the public reacting to this are in fact the lesser elements of the story.
But that is just my hypothesis, based on a reading of the article and being left with questions about why the Board did not react in a certain way or why Sita did not react in a certain way. Perhaps I am revealing my own baises that reasonable people who have been hurt can expect reasonable resolutions. Judge not lest ye be judged, you rightly quote Jesus. And he also said something about complaining about the speck that is in your neighbor's eye while you've got a plank jutting out of your own.
"Onepeace, I look forward to your replies."
Onepeace needs to make no reply, as she has bravely come forward, told her story, and has again bravely stated why she did it. For her to answer your very pointed--and interestingly, very nuanced--questions, is not needed. Now it is Truth that must answer, and for you to continue your pursuit of truth--little "t"--is to divert attention from bigger issues.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation