Over the last few weeks I've been trying to start up a sitting group again, as well as apply to the Soto Zen Buddhist Association. I'm not really sure what the SZBA does, and I'm 90% sure it's just a group of my friends that gets together once a year and hangs out without me (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Part of the application process involved writing an "ethics statement" for my temple/ organization, which builds on the traditional Zen precepts to apply more explicitly to ethics within organizations. I asked some Zen friends for templates, and for the most part all their examples seemed fine. A lot of the ethics statements seem concerned with power and boundary issues within the sangha which I definitely don't have a problem with! (jk my middle name is "boundary issues..." see this post and this post and above comment about my enduring love for my therapist. Oh crap I mentioned her again!).
As I thought about the kind of ethics I think are important, and what ethics statement I want for a group that I run, it seemed crucial to me to add two pieces that were left out or under-emphasized in the examples I received. For "right sexuality," most of the ethics statements centered around discouraging teachers from having sexual relationships with students, which, yes, let's definitely discourage that, but also, what more can and should we say? Sex is not going away, and "right sexuality" necessarily contains sex, so I thought it was important to be more explicit and clear about right sexuality. This is what I wrote:
We believe secrecy, shame, and power imbalances are breeding grounds for sexual abuse, and so we strive to create a transparent, shame-free, and ethical community where we acknowledge the role of power in our sexual lives. We are committed to a radical, ethical, feminist, and sex-positive practice of sexuality. We acknowledge the importance of sexual energy in our lives; because of sexual desire’s power and seductiveness, we strive all the more to approach our sexual relationships with honesty, communication, self-reflection, and kindness. We encourage sangha members to explore and clarify what “right sexuality” means to them, with an understanding that there is a different between “taboo” and “sexual misconduct.” We believe true right sexuality necessarily contains both ethical behavior and pleasure, and that non-monogamy does not necessarily preclude right sexuality.
"Right sexuality" is a moving target. It changes over the course of our lives. When I was twenty years old, just beginning to discover Buddhism and the precepts, I devised my own interpretation of "right sexuality" which was "sex that does not harm myself or someone else." I still think this is a good definition. As a twenty-year old woman, my task in right sexuality was to create sexual relationships that did not hurt myself. I think this will be the task for many (but not all) women in relationships with men. Now that I'm older, "good sex" seems to be an important part of right sexuality, and this, as I wrote about above, includes communication and departing from shame. And... some other things.
Pleasure is usually left out of the discussion of right sexuality, but especially for women, this is an important piece to acknowledge. For queer people as well, for whom sexuality is such a large part of our identities, reclaiming and exploring pleasurable sexuality is crucial to being whole and sane. So a discussion of "right sexuality" that is politely caged in euphemisms and Buddhist terminology might not be the most helpful for the majority of Buddhist practitioners.
Similarly, since shame is such a powerful tool to silence and coerce, and since it is perhaps the worst byproduct of sexual abuse, I felt it was important to name "shame" as an enemy of right-sexuality-- not the only enemy, mind you, but a powerful one. Part of departing from shame in spiritual communities is to de-stigmatize sexuality, and I think the onus is on teachers to stop pretending we are asexual beings. When teachers pretend to be asexual beings, instead of embracing a transparent, self-reflective, and sex-positive view of right sexuality, this creates an environment where people feel they cannot speak, cannot ask questions, cannot be open about sex (and by extension, cannot be open about sexual abuse). Before the Buddha was enlightened, Mara came to tempt him. The Buddha saw Mara for who he was and says, "I see you, Mara." We have to do this too, even when "Mara" is out own sexual desire and preference.
The other ethical piece I thought was important to add was one about white privilege and colonialism. Beyond striving for "diversity," it seems crucial to me that Buddhist teachers in the West take up dismantling white supremacy as a core, foundational part of community building. We must move towards an ethic of radical love. My partner and I co-wrote this:
White, male, straight and cis privilege left unchecked alienates sangha members and and creates further oppression in our communities. We acknowledge the twisted karma inherent in the conditioning received at the hands of the dominant culture in North America and strive, at all times, to examine institutional injustice and the implications and effects of privilege granted thereby. To that end teachers have an obligation to their students to educate themselves on the subjects of privilege and intersectionality. Engaging with groups that combat white supremacy, such as #BlackLivesMatter and Showing Up For Racial Justice (SURJ), in order to broaden the teacher’s perspective is an ethical imperative. We also are committed to studying the legacies of colonialism and globalization that brought Buddhism to the West, recognizing that no practice of Buddhism in the West is separate from this karma of domination, racism, and orientalism. Even as we honor and revere our Asian teachers, we acknowledge the role of exotification in the study and practice of Japanese Zen and strive to de-colonize our Buddhism.
This is something I am still thinking about and mulling over for myself; I don't know how to articulate it well yet. Still, I am somewhat put off by the rhetoric in sanghas of making an effort to "include people of color" in Buddhist communities. It's similar to the common feminist concern with "including women of color in feminism." As Mia Mckenzie writes, that's not the right question. Instead of asking "how do white people include people of color in Buddhism," it seems to me that a much better line of questioning is, "what can white people do to deserve being included in Buddhism (which was invented and practiced by people of color for most of history?)" How can white people center the needs of people of color? That's a better question.
These are just some initial thoughts. And now, to play with my dog.