Hi Folks,

Just wondering if people had any comments on Sangharakshita's interview which he
transcribed and can be read at:

http://www.sangharakshita.org/What_is_the_Western_Buddhist_Order.pdf

Where he states that:

"My replies to the questions put to me may, indeed, be seen as my Last Will and
Testament for the Order, and I therefore request all Order members not only to
'read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest' its contents but also to give it
appropriate expression in their lives as Order members."

One of my first reactions was concern that this take on the FWBO, as it is now,
may go someway to alienating more than a few members. Any thoughts?

Warm regards,

Adrian

On the whole I think Sangharakshita's message to the order has helped to clarify things, and the discussion around it has been useful.

I'm wary of hypothetical discussions about possible reactions from other people - I prefer to focus on my reactions, or your reactions in a more concrete way. I wonder if it is useful to employ the term 'alienate' in this sense?

The whole point is that the order stands for something definite, has certain values and priorities. If in reading Bhante's message you were to find that you disagreed with him, it's not a matter of being alienated, but simply finding that you disagree with him on values and priorities. If that disagreement goes deep enough then the order is not for you. I think it's a fallacy to think that the order must accommodate everyone, even those who feel out of step with our stated values and priorities. There is an important distinction between ecumenical (which the order is) and universal (which the order is not).

It must be said that some people who were once in sympathy with Sangharakshita's vision of the order find that they are not anymore. They have changed but the vision of the order has not. One doesn't stay in the order out of sentimentality if one is serious about spiritual practice. Far better to be clear that one has changed and to formalise that by moving on, than to linger on half-heartedly. At worst we do have a few members who seem to resent the fact that the order will not necessarily change to accommodate individuals. But that is not really taking responsibility for the situation. One would expect more of an order member.

So it seems to me that if anyone is claiming to be alienated on account of reading Bhante's message it is a straightforward case of finding that we have different values and priorities, and maybe it is time to move on. Clearing that up is a good thing for all concerned. Sometimes helping to clarify what one doesn't believe is a necessary step on the way to articulating what one does believe. It's hard to imagine taking on Bhante's teachings wholeheartedly if one had major disagreements with him. Why one would persist under these circumstances? It would be unprofitable.

I welcomed Bhante's statement and hope that we will see more of this kind of thing from him and his senior disciples. It's nothing new after all, but could do with an emphatic restatement in some cases.

Best wishes
Jayarava

I'd just like to mention that if anyone here is interested in this thread, there is a lively discussion about it in the FWBO Yahoo Group.

With Metta,

Adrian

Hmmm. I started that group a few years back, and then dropped out leaving it in the hands of others. Last time I rejoined it I found that the FWBO was in a minority and FWBO ideas were seemingly quite unpopular. My thought was that this is no longer an FWBO group. I wonder if the pendulum has swung back towards the FWBO again?

I recently found a book review by Josh Baran of "Zen at War" by Brian Victoria, which can be read at:

http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm

It made me think about some of what Sangharakshita had said about Zen in "the interview". It also resonated with me on a more personal note.

I had a teacher for about seven years who's main background and teachings were straight from the Zen tradition. His writings and explanation of the Dharma I found inspirational and I devoted myself to the practice of his teachings. I encouraged people I knew to get involved and I helped organise retreats and I set up and led his first "satellite group" with his blessings. Unfortunately due to his communication skills which at times I found emotionally abusive, myself and others ended up needing to leave the group.

It was a painful awakening for me. Shocked, upset and angry I felt I needed to reassess my part in what happened and what relation insight had to wisdom, compassion, skillful communication and personal development. I am still in that process. But I do believe now that having deep and authentic insights does not necessarily make someone a more loving person. In fact I believe it actually has the potential to make a person more arrogant! Because there has been a seeing into a particular side of reality and perhaps a brief knowing of the transcendental wisdom that this may offer, it can, l believe lead someone into inflation. They may then believe that they both know the true way and are more than they truly are. Hence some of the dangers of the tathagatagarbha teachings. It can be, I fear, a very dangerous place for someone to be in and have the potential to be the cause of much suffering for people around them. I think that this has something to do with the book, Zen at War by Brian Victoria, that is reviewed on the link I gave above. I also think it may have something to do with why Sangharakshita is so cautious about embracing Zen and other similar ways of practice. I am aware that it can be both harmful and overzealous to throw the baby out with the bath water and don't want to say that these teachings and insights can't also have real value and be part of a genuine spiritual path if they are allowed to flourish within the right context.

I have been in two minds whether to email this post or not. I sincerely hope that in the bigger picture it goes a little way to reduce suffering rather than increase it.

With Love,

Adrian

"But I do believe now that having deep and authentic insights does not necessarily make someone a more loving person."

I can't go along with this. If the result is not love then the insight is not authentic! It is a simple equation, perhaps too simple, but I think it is better than your council of despair. My relationships with experienced practitioners confirms it. I do know people who embody Buddhist values to a much higher degree than others - some who have maintained their kindness and friendship towards me in very difficult circumstances over many years. Them I trust. I'm planning a blog post on this subject but in the meantime you might want to contemplate: Udāna 6.2 (PTS Ud 64-66).

Insight cannot lead to inflation, indeed it must lead in the opposite direction if it is insight at all. Inflation is a sure sign of the absence of insight. The mark of insightfulness is selflessness.

Unfortunately I think Sangharakshita's comments on Zen lack a sufficient context for those outside the order to date - there has been a discussion going on behind the scenes. It might be useful to recall that Sangharakshita has also written very positively of Zen at times - one thinks of The Essence of Zen for instance. More recent statements - also not exactly public domain - make it clear that his target is *eternalism*, not Zen per se - where Zen is not eternalistic (and most people seem to agree that this is vast majority of Zen) then there is no problem. Indeed the just sitting practice comes from the Zen tradition!!! The concern is that some order members and mitras seem to have been taking on (potentially) eternalistic ideas - one OM in particular resigned after it became clear that he had changed his allegiance to a purely Zen style of practice.

It's not a matter of embracing Zen or not embracing Zen. Sangharakshita has put together a coherent system of practice for his disciples. It draws on Zen to some extent, but it is not Zen. The issue it seems to me is how the system, which Sangharakshita initiated, grows and develops. I think he is concerned that not enough attention is being paid to his own core teachings, and too much uncritical attention is being given to other systems of practice. The attitude that "anything goes" has become quite prevalent, and not everyone who is shopping around is well versed enough in Sangharakshita's teaching, or sufficiently insightful, to successfully integrate new ideas with his (quite senior OMs have botched this in the past!). The down side of that is confusion about what's important and a lack of sufficient application to the practices that we already have. If you practice with the FWBO but are actually more inspired by some other teacher then it undermines the movement, and it undermines your own commitment to practice. Practice takes a lot of perseverance and application - variation and novelty are really not important at all.

I hope this helps to put things in perspective.

Best Wishes
Jayarava