I have since updated this account with more detail about the incidents. Thank you for your feedback.
HS2021
Karma: 279
Thanks for sharing. There is a big difference between clarification and denial of claims. Based on my own experience and that of many other former residents I’ve spoke to I find this response appalling and misrepresentative of the events and the organization.
It also does not address or list the specific risks of the training either here or on the website. Without which statements such as ” We expect people who come here to take personal agency for their mental and emotional well-being” are unreasonable.
For the record, Kenshin Dee who recently joined the board is listed as the head of an Ethics Committee and the person who will be overseeing an “internal investigation” both has major financial investments in MAPLEs village and is the mother of OAKs former teacher, whom is one of the four men whose ethical conduct is implicated in my letter. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
There 100% should be a 3rd party investigation into ALL claims of unethical misconduct and abuse done by a reputable and unaffiliated investigator.
Thank you for sharing this. Yes, this public awareness is needed. I am sorry that you also had a highly adverse experience with the center. Sending you well wishes for support and integration 🙏
The letter could probably use greater clarity on events. There however is a substantial amount of information in the letter regarding recruitment practices, lack of informed consent, training risks and impacts, and lack of teacher/”staff” experience that I am guessing you didn’t have a few days ago. You are right that it can be helpful to think in public about organizational issues and that strategic focused documents can be helpful. You have stated your preferences for more detail and thorough documentation about what the environment is like are noted and maybe helpful in future statements.There are already collaborative efforts that have been and are working on this kind of documented effort to which I have contributed substantially that will be available when they are available.
That however, is NOT the purpose for THIS letter. It would be helpful to remember that you are NOT the primary audience for this letter (unless you have an undisclosed affiliation here.) It would also be helpful to remember that we are not entitled to people’s stories or more than they wish to share. Please notice that you are engaging with me and with events that were incredibly abusive and traumatic to me. As stated above this style if writing and response is not geared towards less wrong but I none the less thought it would be useful info to some people who maybe on the fence in this community. I am writing in a way that feels heartfelt, clear, and authentic for me. This is a extremely personal and emotional letter about my experience (and one that has been very painful and still is) and a call to action to the Monastic Academy and broader community members. Most of whom do have context for this environment and will not be surprised by statements such as “I experienced this environment as trying to break me...” This letter is very much for those community members who are out there hurting and feeling alone; whom already know what I’m talking about. I want them to know they are not alone. You have no idea what kind of messages I’ve been getting in ptivate. There are people whom have been waiting a decade for someone to speak out. Someone had to go first. Hopefully more will come forward when they are ready. The silence is over.
Based on your previous comments around consent I suggest you further engage with your own inner work and further education about how to better navigate consent.
Thank you for your input and you’re welcome 🙏
An Open Letter to the Monastic Academy and community members
Re: my familiarity with high intensity training. I am primarily familiar with nonprofit structures, nonprofit leadership, organizational development, common and best practices, common challenges, and the solutions and practices that would be vital in such a space. From this viewpoint I can see many things that are creating issues that impact individuals and the organization that could be addressed with 3rd party input and guidance but overall I think the organization lacks an appropriate level of training and experience collectively to be able to be able to function safely as an intensive training environment. In order for this to happen substantial outside support would need to be brought in both on the organizational side and the Monastic side to hold the space. Since my training at OAK I have taken time to research, speak to Buddhist teachers and visit other Monastic centers to see how they operate and ask questions. Those interactions have been profoundly beneficial and healing for me. Knowing what I know now I would never train in an environment like MAPLE/OAKs again and I would substantially vet any monastic or other spiritual practice/retreat/community that engages in intensive practices including speaking to a number of former students before attending myself. From these conversations I have gathered much of what is happening there is not in alignment with common or best practices for monastic trainings—and maybe considered inappropriate and dangerous by other legitimate Buddhist practicing community standards. I am not an expert and continue to familiarize myself with Buddhist practice and Dharma as someone interested in learning from this path and practicing meditation. There are others whom are better sources of insight regarding these traditions, practices and risks. What I have learned through a couple of monastery visits and a half a dozen conversations with other experienced practitioners and teachers is enough for me to feel this training is not safe.
Here is a Facebook response posted by the former Assistant Director, whom previously was a part of MAPLE for 3 years and a core leadership member https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10109115376589050&id=900287&m_entstream_source=timeline
In response to ChristianK, I hear that you would like more details and feel strait accounting would be useful. You are right that there is a difference between kissing someone without consent ( would also be messed up to get thrown out of a monastery for being kissed without consent) and the legal definition of rape. I believe my statement was that “consent was assumed without the practice of consent in a sexual encounter” which would indicate more than say being kissed. I will sit with whether or not I wish to give more details about this account. Thanks for bringing to my attention that this feels ambiguous.
In my original account written in a document that will soon be shared with the organizations board when finalized account covers 10 pages of play by play my experience at OAK plus 20 pages of interpretation and organizational feedback. A 30 page document is not an effective way to community to the general public. And I do not currently feel inclined to share that information with those whom do not have a direct leadership role or have an established relationship with myself at this time.
Please consider that my account is attempting to hold someone whom I once loved (as stated in my letter) and with whom I shared deep relationship with as gently as possible despite the impact of his and others actions on myself. And that crossing boundaries, sexual assault, and rape can happen in relationship at any time regardless of ones connection to an individual. The issue of consent is an incredibly difficult one to navigate given that many people have not been adequately taught. I may or may not choose to share further details about this initial encounter for a number of reasons as it is ultimately my personal story and a source of deep pain.
My account is meant to primarily focus on my broader concerns about the training as well as the response of the organization to this incident rather then the initial incident itself. Please consider that in any situation or degree of consent being violated that the subsequent response of the Monastic Academy to this incident was wildly inappropriate, sexist, excluded my voice and participation, and caused damage to emotionally, physically, and relationally. My story is ultimately one of a much broader conversation about safety and harm that needs to happen with the Monastic Academy’s broader community.
Thank you for your earlier response. Re: Soryu’s ability to safely lead these trainings which I think is a much bigger question that impacts many people. Multiple accounts from others studying at Sogenji with Soryu also raise red flags and conflict with Soryu’s own account. There is not really a way I can prove this to you other than asking others if they are willing to converse with you about this. The training Soryu is teaching does not even closely resemble Shinzen Young’s system who has given him permission to teach within his system and to my knowledge he doesn’t have adequate training or permission to teach the style of training he does which most resembles intensive Zen practice. Soryu is operating outside of any Zen lineage and as such does not have the kind of accountability that would come from a lineage. Many accounts of negative psychological breakdowns and long-term symptoms of cPTSD amongst former members also seems to support the idea that he does not have the capacity to offer this training safely (despite whatever good intentions he may have.) This intensity combined with the lack of experience, a grandiose vision that justifies harm, hierarchal authoritarian guru structure without accountability is an especially concerning combination laden with compounding risk factors. The fact that my experience and the organizations actions took place at his direction (according to what I have been told by those given these instructions) also does not reflect well on his character or ability to lead. The board of the organization is primarily made up of current/former students with Soryu as Head Teacher, Founder and Board President which presents a substantial conflict of interest in effective board governance. Issues of transparency with those recruited and with donors are key areas I am concerned about.
Of course, there is greater context than what can be offered in a letter. However, please consider that what and whom most benefits from denying these events and/or attempts to discredit being that nearly every other person involved in these events is still actively involved and the great lengths they have previously gone to protect their “reputation” which has ultimately led to this statement. If it were not for months of frustration and attempts to connect via a mediation process this would not be here. If apologies and amends had been made for these actions along with a demonstration of genuine integration and learning from these events to promote great safety for future students I would not be making a public statement. I would also take note of others comments and accounts that maybe forth coming. There will likely continue to be many details of people’s experiences that they do not feel comfortable sharing in these venues.
My attempts to communicate with the organization directly since last Dec, and primarily since last May have been unsuccessful. This organizations leaders were only willing to engage in a mediated conversation under the conditions of all public criticisms being removed so unfortunately the possibility of creating a multi-party statement did not exist. This account is obviously a highly condensed version of the events. My account primarily focuses on the practices of, other details of my experience, and the response of the organization (i.e. pressure to sign documentation, exclusion from conversations about the events, immediate removal following the inappropriate actions of a leader, shunning) which would be highly inappropriate, sexist, and hurtful under any circumstances but is further compounded by my lack of consent and choice in this encounter.
I would welcome the man involved and possibly others involved into co-creating a multi-party account in the presence of a nuetral 3rd party mediator with acceptable conditions as long as it was truthful and accurate—and did not continue to perpetuate longstanding patterns of sexism, silence and complicity. It is possible I may share more details in the future or may choose to more details with certain people within the Monastic Academy’s community. It is also possible that I may decide not to.
Again my story is part of a bigger story; one in which many people of all genders have experienced significant harm as a result of either the training or unethical actions of leadership- most of which detail accounts of psychological, emotional and spiritual abuse rather than sexual misconduct. Though I am aware of other accounts of this as well.
For anyone whom would like to know more about my personal experience and the concerns I have regard patterns of negligence and abuse at the Monastic Academy I have recently shared an open to the organization: https://medium.com/@shekinahalegra/dear-monastic-academy-and-community-members-49c25d9646a4
Unfortunately, victimhood and abuse still exist. I can not speak to Aella’s character or intentions because I do not know her personally. But this comment definitely shows me more about your own feelings of discomfort and resentment towards a woman for holding more influence and using her social influence to speak to her view of the world including how patterns like “frame control” can be harmful.
I do know that speaking to these experiences is often not about “playing the Victim card” it is about speaking the truth of one’s experience and bringing attention to things, people, patterns who are causing harm. It takes a tremendous amount of courage and cares to challenge and speak to patterns of abuse in communities that often silence and punish those who speak out. We live in a time period where people (finally) feel freer to speak up about abuse—AND still, these simple acts of courage are inevitably met with people who want to disparage your character and judgments like “you’re playing the victim card.” From where I am sitting, what is it that you think Aella really has to gain here? Maybe some level of recognition within a relatively small community for speaking about a widely known and discussed the matter of community safety and harm that’s impacted a substantial number of people. My understanding of this post is that it is meant to inform and identify patterns of “frame control” that are often difficult to identify.
While this community may value a particular style of dialogue that is often inclined to strip away certain ways of relating there is obviously a need for community dialogue and discourse; and greater capacity to engage on a relational level with difficult conversations. While using an object-level format can certainly have its benefits I also think it’s far more honest to name one’s story and relationship to an issue rather than trying to utilize an intellectualized and detached response (which is fine and seems to be the norm here) that doesn’t acknowledge one’s personal location, identity, and biases. I see that the OP is adopting a common framework used in this community here—but also in various points within the post and elsewhere is quite transparent about her position and agenda within the broader conversation (re: Leverage) and where she comes from. How many people do you know that have this same level of transparency in their online presence?
Usually but not always by the time something like the Leverage situation happens or other reports of harmful patterns of negligence or abuse in a community or organization make it to an online forum there has been a longstanding history involving multiple people and attempts to address issues directly.
Speaking up personally about community issues of harm is almost ALWAYS a risky move most people don’t have the guts to do or the willingness to set aside their own personal concerns of reputation and privilege for even when they are well aware of issues that are negatively impacting and/or causing harm to others. Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of advocacy, leveraging one’s privilege, and allyship?
Yes this. Reframing the recipient of violence as a threat or an aggressor when theyve mistreated and/or attacked them is a common frame control tactic.
Additionally, manipulating events through PR and telling stories about the person harmed to others that demonize them so that others won’t believe that you harmed them or will justify any harm you’ve caused is a common tactic used to frame events and your role in them as being different then what actually happened. (I.e. demonizing and excluding women who’ve been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct from an organizations leadership and/or wealthy donors, framing oneself as “trustworthy” while not practicing transparency with many of its donors or they people they recruit, promoting “community” and “integrity”while lacking a functional accountability structure, actively enabling harmful patterns of negligence and abuse and silencing and getting rid of anyone who express criticism or dissent, ect)
Looking at you Monastic Academy.
PITW #159 “This is hard, Be strong”
Fellow former City Year Member here who served in Columbia, SC. Reading your comment definitely brought up memories and makes me feel like I need to go back over that experience with a new lense now. City Year was definitely challenging to ones sense of individuality and had a very rigid structure. Yes they have very specific ways of building culture (red jackets, morning chants, PITWs, ect.) That could described as culty and definitely focus on instilling a particular view/set of values—hadn’t quite thought about it that way at the time. There is definitely a clear hierarchy in structure and a bit of a glorified image put forward that is umm.. different then the experience. The work and the year also yielded a lot of important lessons. I can totally see how “frame control” showed up with certain leaders. That being said to my knowledge there were also clear agreements being made with consent, organizational and financial transparency, clear codes of conduct, people feel comfortable complaining and giving feedback, and at least within the branch I served at the overall cohort lacked many of the defining features of a cult (i.e the cult personality and many group dynamics). People still maintained a level of individuality and agency even within that and nobody was ever pressured to stay beyond their original commitment of one year. Even then people did not meet resistance if they chose to leave mid contract. Though given a particular leader with narcissistic and charismatic authoritarian qualities (like Soryu) I could totally see how a dynamic could easily become more cult like. There were things City Year was really good at - and then there were things that they really weren’t.
You mentioned above you think frame control is probably necessary for good leadership—but what if that’s based on a cultural script and model of leadership that doesn’t actually serve to create a better or more equitable world. What if that model of leadership is actually just perpetuating the same patterns of harm? The question is, is it beneficial to aspire to that level of frame control? Or are these types of hierarchical, power over structures in which heavily utilized frame control is actually outdated, limiting, lacking in diverse perspectives, and creating environments in which abuse of power is more likely to occur.
I’d say one difference between “frame control” and say sharing different points of view is “power” and the extent to which one (mis)uses their skills, talent, status, resources to overpower or control another person’s reality vs. them operating from a place of agency and engaging with one another.
Similarly, I’ve been a part of a many many Women’s Circle in the PNW that shared many multicultural elements, groups norms, ceremonies, common language, ect. We also have “agreements” of confidentially. Agreements being the keyword are often co-created. Creating shared realities is not the same thing as frame control. However, cause humans be humans obviously varying levels of frame control can happen in any relational or group environment. For all I know your men’s group might have been cult like. Who am I to say!
I have also worked with a number of nonprofits (8) over the past 10 years with various cultural and organizational dynamics I won’t go into here in direct services, as a Development Coordinator/Director, Grant Writer, Strategic Planning and Organizational Development, board member, various other service leadership roles, ect which has yielded a lot of insight into how organizations develop at various stages and what best practices support functional dynamics a long the way. It’s been my observation that collaborative and egalitarian models which strongly represent the communities they serve, have strong accountability and grievance processes, and actively seek feedback and integrate community voices are most effective at achieving their mission, create healthier communities and are more stable over the long-term. They actually engage in LESS “frame control” and actively create spaces for very different perspectives and lenses to intersect—which seems to create more positive organizational cultures. While structures like City Year can scale quickly and get a lot done—there are also significant disadvantages to having a more hierarchal structures and they tend to leave many young people somewhat burnt out rather than ” Fired Up!”
Any group or community can evolve into cult dynamics within an authoritarian, hierarchal structure without clear safe guards and healthy, ethical leaders. It’s important to be clear about the difference between a culture and a “cult”. When we start talking about cults according to it’s current definition what is being talked about is a very specific set of structures and defined group behaviors. Usually it’s when these characteristics and behaviors are taken together that you get an actual “cult”. I’d highly recommend you aquaint yourself with what these are Friend, because you are in a very high risk situation.
I also happen to be a former Monastic Academy apprentice and am the one who brought them up earlier. In ten years of nonprofit service I have never personally encountered a more high risk, dysfunctional, authoritarian/hierarchal, unethical, sexist and abusive organization. I have never encountered the level of flat out denial, silencing, disassociation, and “frame control” anywhere else other than maybe some fundamentalist Christian churches. City Year was NEVER anywhere close in terms of frame control and the kind of unethical behavior that happens at the MA would never have flown at CY. The one thing they do have in common is using an overly idealism driven and not entirely transparent narrative to recruit young people to engage in areas of work that they are under qualified for and far more inexperienced than what is actually needed which creates a lot of challenge and usually leaves people burnout or in some cases pretty fucked up leaving the Monastic Academy. Having existed for 7+ years and despite consistent feedback about harmful impacts from many past residents and apprentices the MA still does not even have a basic feedback process in place to gather either qualitative or quantitative data about the impact of their programs. At this point it’s leadership is actively aware that the program is actually harmful to a substantial number of people and does not communicate these risks upfront. People who dissent or share negative feedback are actively excluded and/or forced to leave the community (especially in instances of ethical and organizational misconduct as happened in my own experience). This ensures that the community consolidates toward those who agree and are willing to be complicit or at least silent when faced with harmful practices. In the case of a former partner, yes multiple members of the community actively told him to cut any contact with me after I was forced to leave and after I spoke out publicly online about the organization and his complicity he did cut contact with me. Many former residents and apprentices experience symptoms of cPTSD and need to recover significantly after leaving. Longstanding patterns of domination, colonization, misogyny and sexism are very much present in the space. For example forcing women out of the community and actively using coercive methods to keep them silent when they are impacted by the sexual misconduct of leaders and wealthy donors. The relationship to power and money is extremely unhealthy—and their are no real accountability structures in place (i.e. no code of conduct for teachers that defines what abuse is, no established grievance process, and a nonfunctional board). As a fundraiser I definitely found their practices to be highly questionable and unethical—and are likely illegal in some cases according to Vermont State law regarding fiduciary duties and 501c3 compliance. The current board is currently primarily made up of former students and others who have direct conflicts of interest that can impact ones ability with board duties as defined by Vermont State law. This along with the fact that Soryu is head teacher, founder, AND board president creates major power imbalances and is not in alignment with nonprofit or Monastic best practices. Recommendations from most sources and nonprofit consultants say that a board should have at least 7 board members with 0 conflicts of interest—the MA has 2. Most people do not understand how board governance works or how important the make up of a board is to ensure a functional board and oversight. Soryu has zero sources of accountability and Shinzen Young is rarely on site and cannot provide adequate oversight either. He is not a part of legitimate Buddhist lineage and in fact his training history with Sogenji is actually pretty sketchy. It has been my experience that I have never witnessed the level of cognitive dissonance, disassociation, and failure to live up to ones stated mission and values anywhere else. And yet somehow they always find a way to frame themselves as ethical, trustworthy, compassionate, wise, and having integrity even whilst actively behaving otherwise. Frame control is by far one of the things they seem to exceed best at.
You talk about the advantages of a mission driven organization but you don’t seem to question whether or not that model of expansionist, authoritarian leadership is actually healthy—rather than simply perpetuating longstanding cultural patterns of harm that have been going on for a very long time. There are lot of ways nonprofits are shifting and need to shift away from being mission-driven to being community-centered—and to examine the history of colonization, patriarchy, racism, ablism, ect. That exist everywhere. I love nonprofits and working in this sector, but nonprofits are not inherently free of harm simply because they aspire to do good work. It takes active cultivation, addressing cultural patterns and bias, and listening deeply to ensure that one is actually having the impact that one intends to have!
Someone shared this link with me re: group conversations about interactions with the Monastic Academy. So much resonance with the examples of frame control you share re: lack of reciprocation and vulnerability, refusal to collaborate with other perspectives, reframing or dismissing harm, controlling parameters of engagement in a way that creates unequal power dynamics, so on and so forth. Your example of making claims that exclude 98% or people (re: save the world narratives) but highly effective on the other 2% is especially relevant!
Some examples of frame control I’ve seen recently are: Have been attempting to engage the Monastic Academy in a mediation process since since last May re: abusive, unsafe, nonconsensual risks, and unethical treatment by the organization. So far they’ve indicated some willingness to engage in conversation after many attempts of reaching out were ignored and after I told them I’d be going public with my experience (at some point soon.) They then provided a list of affiliated persons whom they are personally and professionally connected to with no mediation background for said process. Have also tried to engage me in unmediated conversations despite explicit instructions from a legitimate 3rd party mediator (whom I insisted on using per the recommendation of another former member and with whom I had no prior contact before this issue) that outline mediations steps including no direct contact between parties, have expressed resistance to other coorganizers about my boundaries and desire mediation, and it remains to be seen if they will in fact choose to engage or not. I hope so as this would actually be the first real commitment and step in the direction of actually addressing harm and attempting to learn and do better! Another thing that is currently happened is that Soryu has actively ignored requests for conversation from multiple women who’ve been hurt by sexist and unethical organizational practices but recently reached out to a coorganizer who identifies as a white cis male expressing care and a desire to talk about his concerns whom he seem to regards as the “leader”. All in all these behaviors and other current responses towards many attempts to engage the org in legitimate paths towards accountability, growth, and restoration/amends making only seem to point towards it being a “cult” or at the very least a deeply dysfunctional and unethical organization. Sadly, as I’d much rather see groups be open to growth, transformation, transparency and making amends for past harms. Only time will tell.
Then again perhaps I’m frame controlling right now and by saying I don’t trust them and I will only engage with them directly via the support and presence of a nuetral third party mediator with many decades of experience dealing with misconduct and repair work in spiritual communities. There are certainly times and places where it seems helpful to attempt to bring one into one’s frame such as when an organizations behavior repeatedly leaves former members traumatized and with cPTSD. In that case sharing ones frame might be critical to interrupting patterns of harm—but also may not be received at all in situations where frame control is part of the abuse. But then again someone can also just repeatedly ignore your frame of reality too. (I.e gaslighting, denial)
Why am I saying also this here—partly because I am affirming that yes frame control is used as an abuse tactic and I think you’ve done a good job of breaking down examples (including the fact that we all engage in some level of frame control) I think it’s helpful and I hope won’t be missused. Secondarily I want to continue to let folks in this community know that their are legitimate risks and reports of abuse happening within the Monastic Academy which displays many of the same characteristics as Leverage ( just so you know some of us are reading your posts and others about those dynamics and feeling a lot of resonance) The MA is actively recruiting in the rationalist community and that very much utilizes frame control—and doesn’t not according to my frame warrant anyone’s trust. I think they honestly believe what they are saying which makes the deception all the more tricky. I hope sharing my own experiences will serve both as a PSA and as encouragement to others out there who are attempting to break out their own experiences of frame control.
Yes! Reputation/Honor vs. PR management is the difference between being known for adhering to good principles/values/standards of ethical conduct especially in difficult situations and makes amends when neccasary vs. the effort made to maintain one’s image and appearance of doing so while not operating from one’s stated principles/values/standards of ethical conduct and/or violating these by engaging in PR efforts that are in and of themselves dishonest and unethical.
I understand your desire to make a distinction about your identity and clear up confusion about your thoughts, actions being confused with statements I’ve made. Here you note that you state that “I’m leaving out my last name so I’m not trivially googled” and then you go on to disclose personally identifying information about me and the names I go by apparently without regard for how others may choose to use this information. While I am generally not interested in hiding my identity, my involvement in activities, and thoughts please consider both the discrepancy in your statement/actions and that my choice to speak publicly to what others have not could put me at risk. Please afford me the same level of privacy, safety, and respect that you do yourself.
I think you have a good point Gunnar—these two things could be better separated. In light of such, I have decided to share some thoughts inspired by the Monastic Academy about organizational practices and how that relates the “big picture” separately.
The Colonization of Cults, Nonprofit Organizations, and Society—LessWrong
I belong to a small group of ex-residents and former apprentices that have been interviewing other community members, have made attempts to create space for dialogue with leadership about issues, have requested a mediation process with a third party mediator be opened for the organization to hear the feedback of current and former program participants, and are now looking at what steps to take to address concerns for safety and well-being of current and future members. There have been fifteen accounts given (12 being within the last 2-3 years) in which people report some or strongly negative experiences that have from my point of view established that these are not one off issues. This is not a large monastery and so this is a significant number of people whom experienced high levels of psychological distress in which participants (i.e. panic attacks, mania, psychosis, flashbacks) There are others who’ve stated that they had negative experiences behind this whom were not open to bring interviewed and/or did not want to have any contact with the organization whatsoever. Some have also spoken to receiving some positive benefits from meditation practice and other aspects of training. All of whom have spoken to unhealthy group and teacher/student dynamics that are consistent with many high demand groups. These former members also reported experiencing significant psychological disturbances while and after training at the MA and difficulty reintegrating back into the world after leaving. Some of these accounts I have heard and received directly (6), while other interviews have been conducted by other group members.
″ In order to let go of those defense mechanisms, we need to put ourselves in a place that demonstrably will take care of us in an ontological crisis.”
While I agree with statement by itself. In relationship to the Monastic Academy which is here called the monastery, this is laughable at best and at it’s worst deeply untrue and dangerously misguided. This does not track with my own experience; or over a dozen other testimonies from former residents and apprentices that have left the monastery over the last 2-3 years in traumatic states whom have not been cared for or even followed up with to see if they are ok by the organization you are speaking about. While some speak to the positive benefits they received via simple living, community, and meditation practice as you’ve described here; many have also had suffering significant pschological challenges and needed professional support to heal and deprogram the unhealthy beliefs and behaviors they learned within the organization. So should you or any other person consider the Monastic Academy trustworthy in the face of an ontological crisis? Especially when the environment itself, more often than not drives one into a state ontological crisis that is neither normal or healthy.
So how do we decide what and whom is trustworthy? How much evidence do we need? Do we trust our own direct experience, first and foremost? Do we ignore others direct experiences when they don’t align with ours? Do we trust the data? Do we trust reasoning, mathematics, and ethics to show us what’s ethical?
The question of ” what is trustworthy?” Is of incredible importance. All too often those whose view of things has been skewed by the privileges given to them by society or within a group(I.e class, race, gender, wealth and social influence) miss the mark entirely on this question because they have never had the good fortune of learning the true nature of the people who surround them, and too often they have not even learned there own. The only way to know someone’s true nature is to watch how they treat others from whom they have nothing to gain but their humanity. Few recognize that this is the most valuable gift of all.
Thank you Lukas; it was incredibly hurtful and it is my experience that the organizations unethical response to this incident caused far greater harm and retraumatizion to myself than even the original incident.
You bring up a good point about intent vs. “cluelessness”. These are my thoughts. It is difficult to me know how much of this was a result of inexperienced leadership trying to cover up what they may have thought was a consensual experience at the direction of their head teacher (who no doubt was well aware of the risks this posed to the organization) vs. they recognize the issue of consent and the power dynamics were a serious issue and intentionally collaborated to cover this up. Either way I believe that OAKs leadership knew that these actions were unethical.
I do believe that much of the organization’s response was in many ways due to having a high risk program model which places people in positions of nonprofit leadership they are not prepared for while also undergoing intensive psychospiritual training. Because everyone is simultaneously having a very intense experience it becomes much more likely that both minor and major organizational oversights and mismanagement will occur. There is a real need for restructuring in the organization and program including separation of key roles like ED and Care Director to avoid future harm and adequate support for participants in training and grounded organizational management. Additionally, in an environment where many unaware and inexperienced (in nonprofit management) leaders look up to and idolize a beloved teacher (Soryu) who they believe to be trustworthy; many of these leaders are acting under the direction of a headteacher whose motives I believe to were driven by seeking to protect the organization at whatever cost necessary. I have never spoken to this head teacher despite multiple requests for a meditating conversation with this man.
Because this program has been running for so long despite many reports of harm and other mishandled situations I ultimately hold the Head Teacher and the board of directors responsible for the decisions they made and instructions they gave to OAKs leaders. While I do think much of OAKs leaders cluelessness maybe forgiveable; there are other leaders in this organization whom are well aware of the substantial harm caused to many people over the years as a result of maintaining this program model. It was and is upsetting to me that this Head teacher and organization knew I was deeply hurt and did not address the harm they had caused through their actions. It is also upsetting to me to see the organization and various members continually justify and support a program model which I believe to have been a significant contributor to the many organizational oversights and unethical actions that created my experience. Experiences like mine should not be considered a justifiable risk of intensive training or simply a “mistake”; especially when the organization does not take steps towards accountability and making repairs with people like myself.