What does this have to do with Buddhist monasticism? Nothing.

[icarus]

Yllllgh. I hate Gilbert & Gubar.

As a former Buddhist nun I hate every millisecond of their -- oh, what's the most recent gem? -- Yeah. "Conventlike life-in-death." It reminds me that Protestantism developed as a reaction against Catholicism and thus anti-monastic distrust runs deep in our culture. Then feminism developed in reaction to Protestantism during the sexual revolution. So you've got that triple whammy of reaction against Protestantism, reaction even more strongly against Catholicism (which is worse in the feminist book), and on top of that you have sexuality as validating yourself as female (and therefore anything non-sexual as invalidating) because of the Christian history concerning chastity.

What does this have to do with Buddhist monasticism?

Nothing. There is no Eve in South Asia. There is no Eden. There's no apple. No history of "chastity" of women. (Read the kamasutra lately? There's no virgin/whore dichotomy in a culture that has no virgin.) Asceticism is largely a male space, a place of honor in that society, in which women are only grudgingly accepted. You must be bold to step into that role.

My lip curls in frustration and disgust as I begin to see why feminists in my past have been so very wrong-headed about Buddhist monasticism, how utterly ignorant, hard-headed, and unable to conceive of another culture and-- argh! I'm re-fighting old arguments in my mind now that I know what they were talking about, knowing full well that even if I had this information, they would be incapable of listening. It's not that South Asian society isn't sexist, it's just sexist in such a different way that none of this applies.

If there are any questions why I'm having trouble forcing myself to write these essays, that just answered them.

If you were wondering. Which you probably weren't. But anways....

*returns to sneering at this artefact of feminism as defined by Christianity, holding it away from me with two fingers, as if it smells bad*

Comments

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that even in Western Christian history, a lot of women embraced the convent life because it was a road to: (a) learning/having permission to read and write (not always easy to come by), (b) having a community with some security, and (c) avoiding dying in childbirth at 16.

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

What work of G&G are you reading? "Conventlike life-in-death" gives no google hits, so I am *sad*.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm surprised. It's in their classic "Madwoman in the Attic" -- the part on Villette. That should have come right up.

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

When the French convents & monasteries were dissolved during the Revolution, the priests & monks were happy to go, but the nuns wanted to stay.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't know that.

But I think I can see why. What were these women to do? Many of them would have had nowhere else to go, and no family connections that could help them. Many would have been too old to get married even if they wanted to. It's not like women then were overwhelmed with career opportunities.

In the meantime, many of the monks would have been younger sons stuffed into the monastery to give them a profession, if it was anything like England.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

*nods* The monasteries were a place of refuge.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

If I'd lived in pre-modern Catholic Europe, I'd have made a beeline straight to the nearest convent, you betcha. One of the earliest (Protestant) proposed programs for single/widowed women was backed wholeheartedly by Queen Anne and *almost* made it until it got shot down by the then-Archbishop of Canterbury for being too papist. I've often thought that would make a fascinating AU.

I wonder about the position of women in Asia who want to leave their families to become nuns. Traditionally, it's fine and dandy for sons in some cultures (Thai, some Indian) to wander off and get religion for at least part of their lives--it's considered an important step in a man's life, either when he's young or at the end of his life. Women? They have to take care of husbands/parents-in-law/children, so it's not so easy, I'd think, for them to leave their worldly duties.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Really? You're the expert on Asia, but if the idea of "chastity of women" does not surface on the continent or islands surrounding it, I'll eat my hat (although I admittedly have to buy it first).

Cultures that aren't communal, i.e. that do assign paternity and rights connected to that (like the Western world, like Arab world, like parts of Africa, although I am woefully ignorant here), have a very, very bad habit of controlling women's sexuality.

This is not Western per se at all: Look at Arabia and the tribal culture. Look at Africa and genital mutilation. It's all about either making sex so lethal that women refrain, or so painful and orgasm-less that they leave it be.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's really is different, largely because of the multiple wives, girlfriends, and attrition caused by India's climate, famine, disease, and wars.

Families are incredibly complicated. There are detailed descriptions in the Mahabharata of who can be considered an heir that includes illegitimate sons, the son of the secondary wife, the son of a wife of higher rank, the son of a maid/person of lower caste, adopted sons, nephews, sons fathered upon your wife by someone of a higher caste or by another member of your family if you happen to be impotent, and onward.

A lot of times they were scraping for an heir. There wasn't that "one woman must produce an heir from this one man" that results in chastity being terribly important.

Now you do see babies abandoned by unmarried women of higher caste (not so much the lower castes) but women were considered highly sexual beings -- and that was that. Just the way it was.

That's largely why women were considered incapable of the hardships of asceticism, because they were thought too weak to resist their own sexual drives.

So from the perspective of Asian culture, Gilbert & Gubar are unlining that insulting message that women are incapable of monasticism.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

So from the perspective of Asian culture, Gilbert & Gubar are unlining that insulting message that women are incapable of monasticism.

Ah-hah, thanks for that background! Didn't know that, and now your criticism makes a lot more sense.

That said, India isn't all of Asia--especially re: Arab desert tribe culture, I would be very surprised if there aren't similar mechanisms of control and misogyny at play in the deserts and steppes further North.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

As I re-read it, I realized I should have specified South Asia. And modern India is more westernized now, so you're not seeing the multiple wives. Still, the historical cultural pattern is there.

China is a completely different matter, Neo-Confucianism under the Song and after brought out a tight control of women. That largely had to do with the wealth they were gaining through huge dowries, and a negative reaction to a corrupt Empress (though Confucianism has rather nasty things to say about women and power). Typically practical Chinese. They weren't so concerned about the sex as the political power that came with wealth.

Tibet practiced polyandry (not such a feminist breakthrough as it seems -- multiple husbands meant that Tibetans didn't have to divide limited land, and the house was passed down through the maternal line, while the yaks, etc., whatever were passed down through the paternal line). Birth rates were so low that a woman monastic was greatly discouraged although a son who was a monk was a feather in the family's cap. Extramarital sex was winked at, gossiped about, but if it resulted in a baby--say hello to your new in-law, kiddo.

The Mongols, Uigyurs, Turks, Central Asia, and whatnot I know little about.

In Heian Japan, pre-marital sex was the norm, but women had very little security and were often abandoned by men. They'd be a favorite for a while, be supported and richly cared for, and then the man would lose interest. Women became accidentally important because of the insular nature of Japanese court life. The only way you could gain influence was to have a beautiful daughter who was trained to be perfect--fashionable, elegant, artistic, musical, a poet--and hope she became a favorite and maybe got to marry someone important.

Islamic culture I tend to group in the Judeo-Christian cluster because Islam also includes various books of the bible and considers Abraham and Jesus and whatnot to be prophets.

[wordwitch.livejournal.com]

Then feminism developed in reaction to Protestantism during the sexual revolution.

Ermm. The, uh, sexual revolution in the 1700s? Because Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792 (and Maria, or The Wrongs of Woman, in 1798.) According to material in Wikipedia, she wrote these works in reaction to "Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord's 1791 report to the French National Assembly which stated that women should only receive a domestic education; she used her commentary on this specific event to launch a broad attack against sexual double standards and to indict men for encouraging women to indulge in excessive emotion." Please recall that the French Assembly in question was rather rabidly and anti-Catholically atheist.

And the year prior, 1791, Olympe De Gouge, had written Declaration of the Rights of Women, rather more directly addressing the French (atheist antiCatholic) reservation of rights for men, all men, and only men.

Now, it is true that "free love" (i.e., not chained by marital legal slavery) was in vogue in a specific subgroup of people at the time; but I don't think that this is what you meant when you said "sexual revolution."

Although I'm unfamiliar with Gilbert & Gubar. Perhaps they are the ones claiming that Feminism did not develop until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

[dancing-moon.livejournal.com]

It's not that South Asian society isn't sexist, it's just sexist in such a different way that none of this applies.

I've found that to go with many feminist's (or human right's advocates in general) arguments against something in another culture. They start out from the wrong POV and won't change it and thus, while the criticism is valid on the most basic level (Place X has sexism!) all the nuances get lost. And the result is that nobody really listens, because either they go all white supremacy "lulz, stupid foreigners" or the realize that the facts are too messed up and ignore it all.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Feminism did not develop until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

I'm not claiming that at all. I'd have to ignore my own family history to do so, since my great-grandmother was a suffragette in the late 1800s.

It's actually impossible to sum up the history of feminism in one sweeping statement (I can't imagine you would expect me to). Though I was summing up my frustration over the negative relationship between feminism and religion, which you helpfully provide more support on the anti-Catholic (and anti-monastic) front. In England the anti-Catholic was not so much atheist as Protestant.

The "domestic woman" addressed by Susan Armstrong was largely a Protestant reaction to control the class permeability that occurred due to industrialisation, enclosure, etc. By controlling the woman through domestic education and utilizing her as a means of oversight, British society could be guided.

The Protestant anti-Catholic feeling continued in the colonies, notably the English colonies, and a substratum of anti-Catholic distrust continued even into Jack Kennedy's campaign. It was a big deal that he was Catholic and might have to obey the Pope.

This subtle substratum continued during the sexual revolution in the 60s, causing the bizarre effect that as Asian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) were imported and embraced by women in the late 60s and 70s as an alternative to rigid Protestant roles (June Cleaver in the kitchen; we'll not get into the reasons for the promotion of this stereotype following WWII), without their ascetic/monastic element.

The result has been played out in a staggering array of problems where students have flat-out ignored basic Buddhist precepts. I fail to see the point of religion (except perhaps as a decorative item?) if one doesn't apply the ethics. And if one doesn't like those ethics, one is probably in the wrong religion.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

India has its own feminist movement that builds on the positions of power women already hold in Indian society. Fortunately, there isn't a need for Americans to go in and show them what feminism is because Indian feminist leaders have a better grasp of the issues.

But when a prominent Indian feminist leader came to speak to feminists at a U.S. college in 2003, the women booed her off the stage. She didn't say what the Americans expected.

[dancing-moon.livejournal.com]

It's always so cool to read your LJ, because I learn a bunch of stuff I didn't even know I didn't know

But really, booed her off the stage? That's just... wow.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Scout's honor. I wasn't there for it, but I talked to the professor who'd arranged the whole thing. He was humiliated.

For me it confirmed my "Johnny one note" impression of the US feminist movement in the last 20 years. There was a shift in the late 80s when the leadership of NOW was in question.

One candidate wanted to adopt a "different strokes for different folks" approach to feminist causes, supporting things like the mommy track for women who wanted to scale back their work hours but still keep their jobs. The other candidate wanted a unified message, "you're either with us or against us!"

The latter won, and US feminism has taken a hard-line approach ever since.

It has meant that while US feminists are unified on issues like abortion, women who have independent views are--at best--assumed to be ignorant pawns of men. It's amazing how badly we're treated by feminists.

I watched an abortion rally where the women who were against abortion were sworn at by feminists, had condoms thrown at them.. while the men who were protesting Roe v. Wade right next to them were virtually ignored. My opinion of the US feminist movement lowered by 20 notches watching that.

Before then I'd always thought of feminism as being about equal rights for all women. I assumed it was alright to disagree on one point or another, but no. Not at all.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I forgot Korea. Everyone forgets Korea.

Korea has a Shamanistic tradition (that predates Buddhism and Confucianism) that relies on female shamans exclusively. That tradition continues into the present and elements of shamanism are focused on locations that are important to special deities and, iirc, people who are ill will go to one of these women shamans.

For this reason, women had an important spiritual role in Korea, and as Buddhism began in the 3rd and 4th century, it was largely spread by Korean Buddhist nuns. A Buddhist nun would have a dream of a particular local deity and then request that a monastery be built on that location. (Men couldn't have these special dreams apparently.)

Later as China began to dominate the region you had Sinefication. The Korean Imperial palace actually mimicked the Chinese palace. There seems to have been a stratification, with Confucianism and Buddhism followed at the upper levels of government, while a mix of Buddhism and Shamanism was practiced by regular folk. I understand Neo-Confucianism also swept through Korea but this gets beyond the periods that I've studied. Neo-Confucianism has almost always been bad for women, but Korean woman have had more dominant political and spiritual roles than Chinese women.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking that my frustration is with the mono-mindedness of radical feminism. I'd have to get definitions to be certain.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Emailing you too much on this, I know. But it has me thinking, and I'm writing about this now.

The misunderstanding comes from mistaking the semiotic meaning of "nun" in certain texts and contexts with actual nuns.

Even in a Christian context, the real nuns are human beings with complex motivations and lives. They cannot be reduced to a "nun" symbol. That is nothing more than a flat sterotype, no more accurate than any other stereotype.

But stereotypes are used to create meaning, in this case in order to convey a feminist message. Only a superficial reading of that meaning will confuse real nuns with the symbolic "nun." People are that stupid, however, which is what makes stereotypes, no matter how useful, dangerous.

In a South Asian context the same semiotic meaning that is conveyed by the stereotypical image of a "nun" (that has no relationship to the reality) is conveyed instead by the symbol of "caste."

Not how caste really functions in Indian society (a complicated affair where Brahmans can be just as poor as any outcaste) but the idea of caste embodied in the standard four varnas (I'm sure you're familiar with the clerical, king, merchant, servant roles).

These symbols are used to create and convey a political message. But it's important not to misunderstand the symbol and then discriminate against--or hey, insult--the real persons in those roles.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

1. Ah, yes, that's what I thought--and even Eastern Asia is more than China, not that you are disputing that in the least. I'm just saying that I'm rather certain we can find patterns of oppression regardless of religious culture.

2. I knew that about Tibet. *g* I read a lot, or used to, anyways.

Extramarital sex was winked at, gossiped about, but if it resulted in a baby--say hello to your new in-law, kiddo.

Heh. And wow. Now why do Stargate Atlantis writers not explore this in their fiction--the scarcity of babies, the fear of losing one's line in addition to that property.

The Mongols, Uigyurs, Turks, Central Asia, and whatnot I know little about.

You and the rest of the world--I'd bet that even the Chinese know little (truth) about them.

Women became accidentally important because of the insular nature of Japanese court life. The only way you could gain influence was to have a beautiful daughter who was trained to be perfect--fashionable, elegant, artistic, musical, a poet--and hope she became a favorite and maybe got to marry someone important.

Depressing. But not too unusual either; nobility in the Middle Ages worked similar enough, if probably less extreme.

Islamic culture I tend to group in the Judeo-Christian cluster because Islam also includes various books of the bible and considers Abraham and Jesus and whatnot to be prophets.

Hmm, culturally I'd say this comparison doesn't work--Islam retains its Tribal Culture Roots, whereas these have been long (and thankfully) been abandoned by mainstream Judaism, and of course Christianity brought its own problems that however don't pertain to this particular desert way of living.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Everyone forgets Korea.

*spit-take*

Korea has a Shamanistic tradition (that predates Buddhism and Confucianism) that relies on female shamans exclusively. That tradition continues into the present and elements of shamanism are focused on locations that are important to special deities and, iirc, people who are ill will go to one of these women shamans.

Huh. Must ask my friends of that background about it; it sounds fascinating. Spiritual power usually translates into actual power, and again, that's not just a Church/Western thing--Native American holy men, Buddhist monks, certainly the Brahmans in Hinduism....

Neo-Confucianism has almost always been bad for women, but Korean woman have had more dominant political and spiritual roles than Chinese women.

I'd be interested to see a contemporary analysis. Considering Korea's independence now, I wonder how much of this stronger role has been preserved.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Oh no! These are important issues, I'm fascinated by them and have always been, plus, see icon.

Even in a Christian context, the real nuns are human beings with complex motivations and lives. They cannot be reduced to a "nun" symbol. That is nothing more than a flat sterotype, no more accurate than any other stereotype.

I agree about the stereotype, but if you look at diversity and positions, a Christian a "nun" is very different from, say, a "nurse." The latter is entirely an individual, with the small exception of certain elements of and about her work(place). The nun may hold her views and opinions, but she certainly cannot stand up for her individualised views when they don't match the official stance of her order.

Well, in my country, she could, but even here, that only goes so far.

Only a superficial reading of that meaning will confuse real nuns with the symbolic "nun." People are that stupid, however, which is what makes stereotypes, no matter how useful, dangerous.

I second that. Meh.

In a South Asian context the same semiotic meaning that is conveyed by the stereotypical image of a "nun" (that has no relationship to the reality) is conveyed instead by the symbol of "caste." Not how caste really functions in Indian society (a complicated affair where Brahmans can be just as poor as any outcaste) but the idea of caste embodied in the standard four varnas (I'm sure you're familiar with the clerical, king, merchant, servant roles).

Yes, both with the (rough! I don't know the sub-castes beyond the highest level) system and the term itself. And heh, yes. Having stayed with Brahmans for a while, cared for, got my bronchitis treated the Ayurvedan way, I sure know they weren't exceedingly rich, although not poor by Indian standards, of course.

But it's important not to misunderstand the symbol and then discriminate against--or hey, insult--the real persons in those roles.

Amen. I completely agree. Thanks for this.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

lol to the icon. Oh, indeed.

...if you look at diversity and positions, a Christian a "nun" is very different from, say, a "nurse." The latter is entirely an individual, with the small exception of certain elements of and about her work(place). The nun may hold her views and opinions, but she certainly cannot stand up for her individualised views when they don't match the official stance of her order.

Having been a nun I have to say that this is part of the stereotype. It tends to be an insular society so our many divisions are not played out in public--not because of the order, but because of the extreme reactions of the public towards monastics. This is true of Asia and the US.

The public is ever ready to tar the entire religion, which we care about, with the same brush if they any division or anything they don't like. It's sort of like being the CEO. You are the face of that organization.

An extreme example: the child-molesting Catholic priests. There are a lot of daycare workers who've been arrested for child molestation, but it hasn't tarnished the reputations of daycare workers worldwide. The Catholic priest thing has impacted people's opinion of all monks, even of Buddhist and other religions.

A less extreme example: my riding on the hood of a car while the monk driving it did a donut, laughing my ass off. We were just blowing off some steam after a heavy construction project. A layperson informed me that visitors would get a bad impression. We could only goof around inside the monastery.

The same thing happened at my work. I was sliding down a hillside, squealing, and my boss commented that if I weren't a nun, I'd be pretty wild. I got the semi-sexual "party girl" way he was interpreting it and, disappointed, I cut it out (until I got home).

There are more examples. A monk friend of mine, Tashi, got stopped for speeding and the cop, well, he recognized the robes and mentioned it. The monk got that he was held to a higher standard and couldn't speed any more.

Because to outsiders we represent the religion and not ourselves (which sucks, by the way) we can't be ourselves. That enforced from the outside, not from the order.

Inside the monastery? Hell, everyone knew that Tashi was a speed demon and I played like a kid.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Inside the monastery? Hell, everyone knew that Tashi was a speed demon and I played like a kid.

Heh.

I see your examples and nod--my personal reaction is certainly a positive one; it reinforces my belief in individuality (and since you read my LJ, I'll assume you know I'm into that and not following the herd at all times...only sometimes). Also, there's of course the issue I don't like humans but do love a lot of single humans. But what makes me smile and cheer doesn't have parts of the public or the establishment react in the same way; that's what I meant.

An extreme example: the child-molesting Catholic priests. There are a lot of daycare workers who've been arrested for child molestation, but it hasn't tarnished the reputations of daycare workers worldwide. The Catholic priest thing has impacted people's opinion of all monks, even of Buddhist and other religions.

Yeah, definitely true. And very sad.

There *is* a bias against daycare workers, though; people are more suspicious these days. But as always, the parents who have their eyes and ears open are not the parents of the kids preyed upon....

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Same thing goes for differences of opinion about religious matters. There are huge differences of opinion in monasteries. Especially on matters of religion. Of course! We all had very strong opinions.

This creates most of the tension between monastics. The Lamas were forever saying we had to just deal with our own religion, not the religion of each other. There are different beliefs, different backgrounds, different opinions of what is important in the religion and what's not... living in a monastery is the fastest road to tolerance I know. Otherwise you'll strangle your roommate.

One example... there was a nun I knew who was into rebirthing. She genuinely believed that you could, through rebirthing, remember past lives. To me that's tin hat territory, there are lots of Buddhist teachings that say only if you're an arhat can you remember past lives. But whatever. I smiled and nodded every time she brought it up.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Same thing goes for differences of opinion about religious matters. There are huge differences of opinion in monasteries.

Oh, yeah. I don't doubt that depending on the religion and the order, the diversity of opinion is great. Inside, that is, for the reasons we talked about.

There are different beliefs, different backgrounds, different opinions of what is important in the religion and what's not... living in a monastery is the fastest road to tolerance I know. Otherwise you'll strangle your roommate.

*g* This makes me smile. Very true, though. And I wonder if that isn't one aspect of the whole idea--away from hermits who find enlightenment under a Bodhi tree or speak to God in the desert after living on honeyed locusts.

To me that's tin hat territory, there are lots of Buddhist teachings that say only if you're an arhat can you remember past lives. But whatever. I smiled and nodded every time she brought it up.

Best course of action, no doubt.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

See, the reason I was doing wheelies on the temple law was that I had a different idea of how to present monasticism. I felt humanizing it, giving people an inside scoop was the way to go. I disliked the distance with which people regarded me, that whole, "Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean to swear in front of the nun." *eyeroll*

Other people didn't feel the same, so like any community I had to grapple with my own ideas vs. the community consensus. That consensus wasn't established by "Buddhism" so much as by which faction of the monastics was in power. I've had that problem in fandom. I still feel that fanfiction needs to be de-mystified and familiar to make it not so much of a threat, but other people didn't agree. Buddhism was no different. Sometimes I had to yield to the community consensus. Under protest.

Since I was anti-authoritarian (note that nothing in Buddhism supports this, it's just me) I was always going to toe-to-toe with the latest dominant faction--which meant it was never my view in charge. *g* Er. I may have possibly thrown a cup of coffee at a certain head monk at a certain point....

In terms of the spiritual stuff, I was traditionalist--if it wasn't in the books, they could stick it. The Dharma was my refuge. Others were more interpretive and selective.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

I had a different idea of how to present monasticism. I felt humanizing it, giving people an inside scoop was the way to go. I disliked the distance with which people regarded me, that whole, "Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean to swear in front of the nun." *eyeroll*

Oh, I get that.

Since I was anti-authoritarian (note that nothing in Buddhism supports this, it's just me) I was always going to toe-to-toe with the latest dominant faction--which meant it was never my view in charge. *g* Er. I may have possibly thrown a cup of coffee at a certain head monk at a certain point....

I hope it wasn't scalding hot? & ;-)

In terms of the spiritual stuff, I was traditionalist--if it wasn't in the books, they could stick it. The Dharma was my refuge. Others were more interpretive and selective.

Hmm, I think all communities tend to cling to the status quo. Humans are surprisingly conservative unless, of ocurse, things get so bad that the only way is up.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I hope it wasn't scalding hot? & ;-)

He was being a pompous ass. But I missed and managed to nail half the people in the room. I walked away saying, "I'm so sorry! I'm so sorry!"

A friend said, "What are you sorry for? That was great!"

I said, "I'm sorry I didn't hit him with the whole cup!"

Hmm, I think all communities tend to cling to the status quo. Humans are surprisingly conservative unless, of ocurse, things get so bad that the only way is up.

This was a new monastery so we didn't really have a status quo. Yet. Instead each person had their own idea of what they wanted to see. And personalities and talents played a large part of this.

No coincidence that the woman who had been a highly successful executive at an insurance agency before she was a nun ended up climbing to the top and running things. We take ourselves into this world. She and I crossed swords many times.

She was all about public image and regimentation, with a laxness about the traditional calendar and an emphasis on fundraising over... substance, in my opinion. She had a "build it and they will come" approach. I felt that you focus on the spiritual practices and retreats (that's what we were about, right?) and then you developed the support, the funding et al, because you're doing it.

Oh yeah, we got along greeeeeaaaaaat. Maybe I was naive, but you get into an endless fundraising loop.

Most of our clashes were over stupid little things of course. I had an ugly pair of black leather sneakers that looked ridiculous with my robes. I was trying to work on my vanity (not that I was going to tell her that). Once I no longer cared I looked absurd, I would buy new sneakers. This drove her bonkers.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

He was being a pompous ass. But I missed and managed to nail half the people in the room. I walked away saying, "I'm so sorry! I'm so sorry!"

A friend said, "What are you sorry for? That was great!"

I said, "I'm sorry I didn't hit him with the whole cup!"

*g*

I felt that you focus on the spiritual practices and retreats (that's what we were about, right?) and then you developed the support, the funding et al, because you're doing it.

I agree with the latter stance, but then again, I cannot see myself in a monastery in the first place.

I had an ugly pair of black leather sneakers that looked ridiculous with my robes. I was trying to work on my vanity (not that I was going to tell her that). Once I no longer cared I looked absurd, I would buy new sneakers.

Huh. I like this approach.