Response by the President

Case No. 17/2016: Ricardo Javier Ocampo, Meditazen Community – Bienaventuranza Foundation & Dharma Prema Association

 

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DEFENDER

Dear Sekkha Dhamma, Public Defender assigned for this case.

We appreciate your hard work concerning the professional defense of the Case. Below, there is a list of Presidency’s formal responses of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee with respect to the objections raised.

  1. It is worthy to clarify that the charge to which Mr. Ocampo -commonly known as Master Love– has been subjected, along with his respective communities, is not about criminal offense of sexual Abuse but rather on the charge of SIPIRITUAL FRAUD, which is absolute competition of the Buddhist Ethics and not of the criminal law. Therefore, in order to prove said charge, it has not only referred evidence of the spiritual teachings of the accused but also indisputable evidence of their criminal offenses, even though the latter are not contemplated as Charges by our Committee. Therefore, it is clarified that an accusation and condemnation for sexual abuse constitute valid evidence to sustain the possible SPIRITUAL FRAUD by an individual or community.
  2. Even though the community led by Mr Ocampo has not been directly responsible for the abuses, it certainly has defended and protected the accused, never questioning his spiritual legitimacy and never subjecting him to an internal ethical judgment to analyze the charges and judgments raised by Criminal Justice.
  3. It is recorded that in the evidences presented by the Prosecutor of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee, Master Yan Maitri-Shi, videos of the judgment for Aggravated Sexual Abuse have been shown, at the same time a ruling of appeals chamber has been presented as evidence in which said sentence was based.
  4. It is noted that for proving charge of Sexual Abuse our Committee should have interviewed the victims, which has not happened, because the charge that has been raised to the accused ones has been for SPIRITUAL FRAUD, reason why a video with the testimony of the mother of one of the victims has been accepted as valid evidence.
  5. The Presidency of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee, like any spiritual community (Sangha) of the buddhic people, has enough status to qualify a charge for SPIRITUAL FRAUD, which is easy to qualify and quantify from the perspective of Buddhist Law. In addition, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee, being a transnational Court which is composed of various institutions and spiritual communities (sanghas), has greater spiritual validity than the opinions of any local commune.
  6. At the same time, the Buddhist Law not only has ethical mechanisms to determine the validity of the alleged paranormal powers and the spiritual condition of an individual, as well as the disciplines of parapsychology and transpersonal psychology can also corroborate these facts, but in addition from the legal code (vinaya) of Buddhist Law, the display of paranormal powers itself is one of the gravest crimes within the spiritual communities (sanghas), being one of the few offenses that prompted the expulsion of a Dharma member. This means that, whether true or not, possessing paranormal powers on the part of the accused, the very action of ostentation is a very serious offense within the legal code (Vinaya) of Buddhist people. In fact, even in Zen spiritual communities (sanghas) that have lacked internal legal codes, ostentation of parapsychological powers has always been considered as a serious ethical infringement.
  7. While the omission of criminal status of the accused on the part of his communities is not a criminal offense, it certainly can be considered a Deceit or Fraud at an ethical and spiritual level, since such Truth is not a minor detail but an essential datum to understand the supposed spiritual validity of the teachings and behaviors of the leader of this community.
  8. Although Dharma has certainly evolved from its origins in India to its arrival in China and Japan, where Chan or Zen emerged, there is undoubtedly an essential practical and theoretical body, a perennial wisdom, which is always kept intact, pure and free from perversions and distortions. In this case, Mr Ocampo is not developing a new version of Dharma or Zen, but rather uses these sacred spiritual terms as mere names for their institutions, where the teachings totally match with a discipline which rather synthesizes Hinduism with self-help and martial arts, absolutely lacking ties with Buddhist spirituality, which is not the original doctrine concerning vision and teaching of the accused. This means that the fact a person calls “Zen” to something he or she practices does not necessarily mean that is “Zen”, yet it might hide commercial and profit goals in its denomination.
  9. Indeed, when Mr. Ocampo shows himself as a deity that is worthy of being worshiped this is a different perspective than that of Buddhist spirituality, where the ethical legal code (Vinaya) of the spiritual community (sangha) prohibits these actions. Thus, in the Patimokkha, which is part of the Vinaya Pitaka of the Pali Canon, it is considered that the most serious crimes are sexual abuse, murder (manussaviggaha), theft (adinnadana) and self-adjudication of paranormal powers (uttarimanussadhamma).

 

Best regards, with a reconciling spirit,

Buddhist Master Maitreya

Spiritual Guide and President of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR)

 

 

One thought on “Response by the President

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s