Home › content

Too Much Closeness?

Sun, 2008-05-18 07:47 — Robyn

I don't think Roach and McNally have said or implied that there's anything "wrong" with a more normal, "autonomous" type of marriage. Nor have they done anything to proselytize or promote their own lifestyle. They conceived of these unusual vows and continue to follow them because they want to. It's definitely unconventional and would be too intense for me. Even so, I can't help but think it's a wonderful spiritual challenge. A lot more interesting than what many people choose to do with their lives, anyway.

Also, I think it's possible to develop a more internalized type of privacy that's not based on physical distance from the other person. I recall a documentary I saw years ago about a pair of Siamese twins, sisters, who were conjoined at the head. Since they could not ever physically separate, they had to devise some other way to get private time. What they did was, when one wanted privacy, the other would somehow shut off her senses and go into a sort of hibernation mode or deep meditative state. The other was then free to practice music or work on a project or simply be alone for a while in a place that was outside or above or beyond or below her sister's conscious awareness. They said this method worked quite well for them. Perhaps Roach and McNally employ a similar mechanism or meditation technique to enjoy privacy in close quarters.

See below for a link to the original New York Times article. Robyn
____________

May 18, 2008
Posted by Sheri & Bob Stritof

Leslie Kaufman of The New York Times describes the spiritual and chaste relationship of Michael Roach and Christie McNally.

Roach and McNally have vowed to never be more than about 15 feet away from each other and to live a celibate relationship.

...We...believe that everyone has an emotional need for autonomy or personal space in their lives. We don't see how physically being with each other day and night makes their relationship any more spiritual than our relationship. What is so wrong with needing to take a break now and then?

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Making Their Own Limits in a Spiritual Partnership

Comments

Sun, 2008-05-18 08:16 — Elaine

I like what Roach and

I like what Roach and McNally are doing and want to voice my support for them. It made me feel good to read about them. I do not think people should be so quick to criticize. They have chosen to do something unusual and I am willing to believe them when they say the practice is powerful. What is so great about "normal" couples, nuclear families crammed into small homes, or monks and nuns living in large same-sex communities?

I really enjoy thinking of those two living like that and wish them all the best. Thanks for challenging us and setting a unique and wonderful example for the Buddhist community.

Wed, 2008-05-21 18:47 — beginners mind

one misgiving

What an extraordinary couple! It sounds difficult and it must take lots of kindness and patience. There are many happy unconventional relationships, and these two seem full of joy. They seem like true soulmates.

However, I have one misgiving. Michael Roach still calls himself a monk of the Gelugpa tradition. And Gelugpa monks do not have such close relations with women. Sleeping in a double bed is rather revolutionary.

I would think this situation is causing him and the Gelugpa school great stress since the Geshe has been asked to disrobe. It might be best for them to start their own school, as, in fact, they seem to be doing. It will be interesting to watch what happens to Michael and Christie in the years to come. I wish them all the best.

Thu, 2008-05-22 12:00 — ABN

That's a good point. I do

That's a good point. I do not know the intricacies of the situation, but his group probably could force him to disrobe rather than just ask him to. His behavior is harming no one and is inspirational to many. Without knowing all that much about it, I tend to support what he is doing, creating a slight tension that is clearly making a lot of people think about how to live.

On another level, their practice is very interesting in that it so deeply engages that part of us that imitates others or models our behavior on them. I would think that they have discovered some very deep insights about themselves, or even about people in general.

The two of them have created a strange and wonderful dynamic that challenges all of us in some very interesting ways. My guess is that he will start his own order eventually, but for now wants to remain right on the edge.

Thu, 2008-05-22 15:29 — Robyn

Is there precedent in any

Is there precedent in any Buddhist tradition for such an arrangement as this? I've heard something about "spiritual marriages" in Christianity, but I don't know much about the practice.

Thu, 2008-05-22 20:56 — beginners mind

yes there is some precedent

Some highly realized teachers in the Tibetan tradition do take spiritual partners. However, there is controversy within the Gelugpa School over Michael Roach's behavior. You might want to consult this website: diamondcutter.org, which is a negative take, though Michael Roach is not without his defenders in the forums.

I think one's take on this depends on whether you choose to trust Roach's intentions. H.H. the Dalai Lama, head of the Gelugpa School, apparently disapproves.

Michael cannot be forced to disrobe, which I think is a good thing in the long run. I also agree with ABN that eventually he will start his own school.

Fri, 2008-05-23 07:25 — Robyn

If one wants to talk about

If one wants to talk about this or any other religious practice in terms of what precedent there is for it, I guess all one has to say is that there is a long established precedent of people acting without an established precedent.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out.

Fri, 2008-05-23 15:05 — beginners mind

correction

H.H. the Dalai Lama is apparently not the head of the Gelugpa School. Sorry for the error.

Sat, 2008-05-24 04:24 — ABN

This is one example of what

This is one example of what can and will happen to Buddhism in the USA and/or the modern world. We can expect a good deal more behavior that challenges Buddhist traditions. Some people will favor a conservative treatment of the traditions, others a more liberal treatment.

I personally tend toward the liberal when assessing new situations, but base my assessment on what is arguably the core of all Buddhist traditions--harmlessness and being in good accord with the fundamentals of the Dharma.

At the same time, I tend to have a mild-strong aversion to top-down power structures, especially ones with strong "leader" figures around whom gather "followers." I am sure this structure is helpful for many during certain stages of their lives, but it seems clear to me that it too often leads to problems for both the "leaders" and the "followers." Leaders suffer because it goes to their heads and makes demands of them that few can fulfill. Leaders also tend to be "charismatic" personalities who are attractive to others due to their conviction, energy, appearance, intelligence, or wiles. Followers tend to be harmed by these relationships because they give up too much of their autonomy, self-respect, and critical thought processes.

I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with Roach and McNally's vow to be together. This practice harms no one and does not, to my knowledge, contradict basic principles of the Dharma. The link provided above contains many other criticisms of Roach and many of them seem reasonable, but I am in no position to judge.

A good teacher is a wonderful thing and few will go deep into Buddhism without having spent time with a good teacher. Our teacher, however, does not need to be perfect, exceptionally wonderful, "charismatic," beautiful, brilliant, famous, enlightened, or anything else. They just need to be suited to us and stay with us long enough to get us to focus on the Dharma, internalize it, and make the practice our own.

There does exist a kind of danger in Buddhist practice that the student may internalize not just the teachings of the Buddha, but also his example as a revolutionary leader. Student may lose the ability to see themselves objectively and so want to emulate the Buddha (or their guru) that they try to be revolutionary leaders themselves.

I have some concern that a new breed of American Buddhist "leaders" will appear and that they will trivialize or parody the Dharma in the manner of some TV-evangelicals or the money-loving "guru" types we saw so much of a few decades ago.