![]() |
| Cairn and flag to celebrate my private ordination, June 10, 2005. (Cairn ~ 1.5m). In the hills above the Guhyaloka Retreat Centre, Spain. (38.620356,-0.186663 looking almost due west.) |
GIVEN THE TONE of my blog over the last two years especially, and some of the responses to what I've written, I've been meaning to pause for thought and write something about why I'm still a Buddhist. Glenn Wallis of Speculative Non-Buddhism expressed his enthusiasm for such a project when I mentioned it to him. So here goes, but it might not be what you expect, because the subject is by nature personal rather than impersonal. I've tended to avoid being personal here because it's bitten me in the arse before now, but I can't avoid it today.
In the last couple of years I've been quite busy becoming disenchanted (nibbindata) with traditional Buddhism. I've been analysing and critiquing some of the central doctrines of Buddhism. I did not set out to attack Buddhism, I set out to discover Buddhism in more detail. However on closer examination I found the presentations of Buddhism wanting at every turn, and have been endeavouring to articulate the various problems as I see them.
In the process I have discovered that there are Buddhist fundamentalists who seem to see me as a kind of anti-Buddhist agent provacateur bent on destroying the True Faith. There are also a number of people who feel disappointed with Buddhism for various reasons who have sought to make common cause with me, though I don't find their self-indulgent little revolutions very attractive, and such contacts frequently turn sour when it becomes apparent that I have no intention of sacrificing Buddhism on their bonfire. Then there are the people who have either reinvented Buddhism in their own image, or developed their own special philosophy which peripherally touches on Buddhism, and who want to share it with me, mistaking my critical stance for an openness to every crackpot idea that comes along. After seven years of this I'm a bit jaded, and more likely to give up blogging than I am to give up Buddhism.
In the last couple of years I've been quite busy becoming disenchanted (nibbindata) with traditional Buddhism. I've been analysing and critiquing some of the central doctrines of Buddhism. I did not set out to attack Buddhism, I set out to discover Buddhism in more detail. However on closer examination I found the presentations of Buddhism wanting at every turn, and have been endeavouring to articulate the various problems as I see them.
In the process I have discovered that there are Buddhist fundamentalists who seem to see me as a kind of anti-Buddhist agent provacateur bent on destroying the True Faith. There are also a number of people who feel disappointed with Buddhism for various reasons who have sought to make common cause with me, though I don't find their self-indulgent little revolutions very attractive, and such contacts frequently turn sour when it becomes apparent that I have no intention of sacrificing Buddhism on their bonfire. Then there are the people who have either reinvented Buddhism in their own image, or developed their own special philosophy which peripherally touches on Buddhism, and who want to share it with me, mistaking my critical stance for an openness to every crackpot idea that comes along. After seven years of this I'm a bit jaded, and more likely to give up blogging than I am to give up Buddhism.
I became a Buddhist in 1994, after a bit of shopping around. I've had a more or less life-long interest in psychology and human potential thanks to my mother, Durelle Dean, a true seeker, and until recently a born-again member of a pentecostal church and a missionary working in rural Africa. (She's looking at becoming a Catholic at present!) We get on famously, btw, and I'm about to publish her memoir of her childhood. By the time I went to the Auckland Triratna Centre I was quite clear about what I was looking for. I was looking for a community to belong in. I had toyed with 12-step groups for a couple of years (I'm 20 years sober now), and I'm grateful to my old school friend Gareth Masefield for introducing me to the Steps. It was also Gareth who suggested I try meditation to help with recurrent depression, which I still experience. But why community?
![]() |
| Taupo, looking south. |
![]() |
| Allan, Mitch, Lee, Jaimi |
Hearing about my brother's experience I realised that there was something missing in my life. This was the late eighties and in Auckland there were lots of choices. Durelle was involved in all sorts of things, but latterly Sahaja Yoga. I was reading Robert Bly, Sam Keen, James Hillman, Jung, and chanting oṃ namaḥ śivāya with the yogis occasionally (I always did like a sing-along). I 12-stepped for a while, but didn't find the community vibe I was looking for. If the Alexander Technique people had had a community in NZ at that time I might have gotten involved in that. But they didn't and the nearest training centre was in Australia and it was very expensive! But through my Alexander Technique teacher, Peter Grunwald, I heard about a big men's gathering over a long weekend on the theme of male archetypes, so I headed off to that. We did drumming in the woods, trust games, and a sweat lodge and all that stuff. It was fantastic! And afterwards I got an invite to join a regular men's group which I attended for a while. In the end I felt it was too small scale, and did not constitute a community. It was what I did on Thursdays evenings. I'm grateful to Trevor Johnston (founder of Bean Supreme) for his inspired leadership of that group, and for making meditation sound attractive, but I moved on.
![]() |
| Guhyaprabhā |
Those were some of the happiest times of my life. Difficulties followed as they always do with people: more depression; a broken marriage; bad advice from amateur Buddhist psychologists; and friends who betrayed me for stupid reasons. My first retreat was a mix. In the deep end I loved the long meditations and weird rituals, but it was also a time of anxiety and it was a few years before I could let go and enjoy retreating. I usually had some kind of crisis for the first dozen or so (and thereby became notorious). But almost two decades later, looking back, some of the peak moments of my life have been lived on retreat. Various pics from retreats are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
![]() |
| Sona |
![]() |
| Jayagupta & me with our private preceptor, Nāgabodhi (centre) freshly ordained 13 June 2005. |
I moved to Cambridge in 2002, and was ordained in 2005. I've been living with Buddhists, working with Buddhists; all my friends are Buddhists. I've been going on retreats, courses, weekends, gatherings, seminars (all paid for by my Buddhist employer as part of an innovative remuneration package). I found friends in Satyapriya, Vidyavajra, Gambhiraḍāka, Śākyakumara, Emma, Sanghaketu, Dhīvan, Amanda (and many others). I live with Nāgavīra and Jayasiddhi, one of a dozen Buddhist communities in Cambridge. Dozens of people have passed through our semi-monastic home, from Holland, Venezuela, Portugal, Spain, Australia, Mexico, England and New Zealand. It's had its ups and downs but has been very rich, and I have few regrets. This is my life now, though I hope one day to go back to New Zealand as, like the Māori people, I feel that the landmarks of my birthplace--Tauhara, Waikato, Taupō-nui-a-tia, Aratiatia, Kaingaroa, Ruapehu, Ngāuruhoe, Tongariro, Kaimanawa, Uruwera--are part of my genealogy.
Not long after ordination I went on a retreat focussed on White Tārā. I didn't know anyone there, but as we sat together, sang mantras and praises together, cooked and ate meals together, all in spirit of kindness and friendship based on shared values, a connection emerged that epitomises for me why I'm a Buddhist. Being a member of this community opens up the possibility of deep communication and friendship that I have never experienced in any other context.
| Vajrapriya |
I'm grateful for our community. I feel sorry for people who don't have what I have. Though I'm so critical, I actually find a ready audience amongst my peers. Many of us have similar concerns. Our community has its share of ideologues, but because we constitute a practice community rather than a faith community we can carry quite a lot of intellectual dissent. And we do. I see saṅgha as essential to the process of growth and change. No doubt groups have their downsides, but humans are social monkeys, and we're actually worse off alone. Parasocial relationships: soap operas, celebrities, teachers, blogs, forums, all the modern ersatz communities, are no substitute for getting into relationship with people. Ethics is really only empathetic relationships, nothing more, but nothing less. You can't practice outside of human relationships.
Of course I see that I fell in love, and my critique of falling in love applies to me as much as anyone. "Naivety demands betrayal" according to Robert Bly, though he may have been quoting James Hillman. And I have been betrayed at times. But losing naivety is not a bad thing. In being betrayed I've grown. Better to be betrayed by friends than enemies I suppose, as the long term consequences are usually less severe. I suppose my friends and enemies would be quick to point out I've done my share of betraying (I claim to be a Buddhist, not a saint). I didn't fall in love with Buddhist ideas until later. I was first and foremost a saddhānusarin. I fell in love with the reality of people living and working together with a set of shared values and common goals, and very obviously benefiting from it. Today I might grumble that we are too idealistic, but better that than too cynical. For all the iconoclasm in my blog it's actually a small part of my life.
Of course now I find myself deep in a critical inquiry into Buddhist ideas, the work of a dhammānusarin. The ground work was laid by studying Saṅgharakṣita who remains something of an enigma to me. I'm really very grateful to him, and love him; I'm inspired by his life; and find him frustrating at the same time. He's very kind and friendly in person. Unfailingly so, I believe, whatever is said about him on the internet. I am a Saṅgharakṣitarite Buddhist at heart. He encouraged me to really think about Buddhism in the first place, not to have blind faith, and our correspondence (such as it is) on my recent ideas to date has been encouraging. I don't think just any kind of Buddhism would suit me, and I've no intention of leaving the Triratna Order. I doubt many movements would put up with me slaughtering their sacred cows for long. I have no real interest in Secular Buddhism, though some secular Buddhists were interested in me for a while.
More recently I'm very grateful to Richard Gombrich who has been quite generous over the years, without ever being under any obligation to be so. His Numata Lectures in 2006-7 (that subsequently became What the Buddha Thought) caused a revolution in how I thought about and approached the practice of Buddhism. You can see the change in my blog from around that time. And that lead me to his student Sue Hamilton. I think it's fair to day that Sue is not a great writer, but the ideas she wrote about now saturate my thinking. It was Sue that woke me up to Buddhism being about experience rather than reality. She's not working in the field any more, but graciously responded when I wrote to her. I feel I've developed her ideas in my own way. Many of the scholars I've bugged with my questions have responded, usually positively. I'm grateful to Satyanandi (Fellow of Trinity College) for writing a letter of introduction for me to get a Cambridge University Library reader's card, my most precious possession.
Anyone expecting an intellectual defence of Buddhism from me might be puzzled by what I've written so far. If you only know me through my writing you might be forgiven for thinking that I am someone who has a fiercely intellectual approach to Buddhism. But really I don't. The intellectual side of things is only my pastime. Here's my definition of 'Buddhism' and 'Buddhist':
- Buddhism is the stuff that Buddhists do, and the experiences that Buddhists have doing that stuff.
- One is a Buddhist if one does stuff that other Buddhists do, in the company of other Buddhists.
Yes, they are circular, and there is a chicken & egg problem for those who like that kind of thing. I'm someone who does stuff that Buddhists do, in the company of other Buddhists, and therefore I consider myself a Buddhist. I'm still a Buddhist because the experience of doing that stuff is something I value more than solving intellectual problems. Belief seems to have little to do with why I'm a Buddhist, so even my own intellectual critique seems to have little effect on my feeling that I am a Buddhist. Indeed attacking views makes me feel more of a Buddhist, and my intellectual understanding of the dynamics of experience have resulted in quite strong faith in our methods.
I'm bored by intellectuals who carp from the sidelines, who are not involved in a Buddhist community and have never engaged in any Buddhist practice, but feel confident to comment on Buddhism. Like armchair sports fans, or vicarious travellers it's possible to become very knowledgeable but still to have no sense of what it feels like to kick a ball into a goal, or arrive in a new country. Intellectuals, especially the armchair variety, seem to get caught up in definitions; in what we are supposed to believe or think. They mistake the map for the territory. They are convinced that thinking is the most important thing because it's what they like doing and what they are good at. However most of the important phenomena of Buddhism are felt rather than thought. Buddhism is all about experience. Thinking about Buddhism in the absence of any experience of Buddhism is just having a wank. We all enjoy a wank, but let's not pretend it's anything more than it is. Or perhaps, if that offends, we could paraphrase Frank Zappa, and say "thinking about Buddhism is like dancing about architecture".
What people say they believe is far less important to me than what they do and how they behave, which is a far better indication of what they really value. It's also how I know I have anything important in common with them. Some of the kindest, most empathetic people I know are not great intellects (no disrespect intended). Bad philosophers can still be good human beings (and good Buddhists). They often make far better friends. It's all very well being able to have a good argument with someone, but when the chips are down I want a friend who is loyal, empathetic, kind, and practical; I want a community who'll support me. I don't give a fig for the professed beliefs of the Amish, but if my barn burned down I'd surely love it if the community showed up and made an event out of building a new one together. The fact that we generally don't behave like this seems like a malaise to me. I happen to like the vibe in my Buddhist community, and I like the experience of practising Buddhism. I've watched many people be transformed by our practices and it still gives me a buzz watching friends striving to be better people, and succeeding in whatever degree. I've also watched the internet chatter about Buddhism over many years, and come to the conclusion that it has little to offer. Text is not really suited to mediating human interactions, or communicating values. Realising this I stopped doing forums and started writing longer more considered essays instead. Comments on my blog have only reinforced my perceptions about internet interactions generally. On the whole they've not worth much. Better one hour spent talking to a real person than a 1000 hours spent online.
It is no doubt fun to exercise one's intellect. I love writing the stuff I do and spend hours doing it. But I also like solving killer sudoku puzzles. The most important thing is human relationships, which have to be lived rather than solved by logic. I suspect that it's more important to be able to have a laugh at yourself than to understand the metaphysics of Kant, or the phenomenology of Heidegger (perhaps because I can only do the first). Such things are for the intellectual elite. Certainly I admire people who can cope with that level of intellectual activity, but if I had to choose I'd rather share a good joke with someone than share a philosophical insight. Not that thinking is totally unimportant, just less important. I don't think I can be fairly accused of not thinking. Sharing ideas can be stimulating and interesting, but sharing a laugh is to experience a wordless and deeply satisfying sense of connection and empathetic resonance. And explaining the joke kills it. I discovered today that this opinion is not original.
The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians — and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by such learned dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe — that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power, and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.
Henry Menken. "Critical Note" in "Clinical Notes" in The American Mercury (January 1924), also in Prejudices, Fourth Series (1924) [My emphasis] Via Wikiquotes.
So, I still do the stuff that Buddhists do, in the company of other Buddhists, and I enjoy the experience. Which is what makes me a Buddhist. Yes, their are flaws in Buddhism and in Buddhists, but perfection is a myth. There are no perfect human communities, but at least our community is striving individually and collectively to improve itself. It's all very well being a critic, but I'll finish with the words of Jean Sibelius:
"Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic."
~~oOo~~






16 comments:
I am more likely to give up blogging than I am to give up Buddhism.
As much as I'd miss reading your posts, this seems a sound resolution to me!
Thank you so much for both the inspiration and insight in this post!
Our paths have been strikingly similar in some ways, and I seem now to have similar reasons for continuing to call myself a Buddhist (despite everything).
I found your paragraph that begins "Yes, they are circular" particularly resonant.
I do the intellectual stuff because I can and sometimes I think it might be useful to someone and I somewhat enjoy it. But it has very little to do with my practice or experience of Buddhism.
If I were going to abandon something, it would be spouting off on the web, not Buddhist practice...
Hi David,
Thanks.
I'm not sure I said it in the post, but I believe that being a member of a community is a practice of the highest order. Very challenging but also rewarding.
Hi Jayarava,
When I read about your plans of stopping blogging I really hoped you would write about the personals reasons for that step. Now, after having read your post, I'm really glad you did.
Even though I've only been involved in Buddhism for one year and not even have attended one single retreat I'm on the verge of leaving it.
I've been involved for a while in Secular Buddhism, but in some sense I think Glenn Wallis is right. Secular Buddhism is a contradiction in itself.
More importantly I'm seriously considering leaving my local sangha.
Although the conclusion I draw is the total opposite, when I thought about your post and more, sitting at my bed with tears running down my face, I realized its pretty much for the same reason.
Everything that really puts me off at my local sangha are things that disturb human relationships. Rules that create a distance between people rather than bringing them together. Exercises that prevent true experience rather than enabling it.
When I first read "The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu one thought really hit me: "That's not what we're looking for".
Since then similar things pop up every now and then and fit into a pattern. Stephen Schettini in his essay "So what?" is one of the examples. Your blog post is anouther one. Glenn Wallis says something similar, just in his own punk-attitude ("Buddhism ultimately fails the human").
I don't think these are only exceptions or people unable to live "true Buddhism". I also don't think all the criticism is wasted. I think the question why are we here in the first place and where do we want to go are leading us somewhere.
Maybe, if we're lucky, it leads us to something new.
Something better than Buddhism.
At least, I hope so.
I really do.
Dear Saibhu
One year of being involved in Buddhism and you're ready to move on. And you believe you have great insights into what's wrong with Buddhism? And not even one retreat? And on the basis of shit you've read by strangers on the internet. That's not involvement. You've not involved. You're still just flirting.
People are disappointing. All of 'em. The things they do, the way they talk, and the ideas they have. So what indeed? One has to form attachments or be less than human. Buddhism is about reflecting on the experience of disappointment, not avoiding it.
Disappointment is not only to be expected, but is essential for making progress! We learn by reflecting on experience. But people do not become less disappointing in general. Indeed for the first 10-20 years they become MORE disappointing!
"Maybe, if we're lucky, it leads us to something new.
Something better than Buddhism."
NO! This is just magical thinking! Buddhism is just people. It's exactly what people do. People are the same everywhere. If you want to make your relationships more human then you need to commit to them for the long term, pour yourself into them. Use your judgement (a la the Kālāmas) but commit. If you are looking for something more human then where will you find it except in relationship with humans? If you are looking for something more than human then you will find life endlessly disappointing.
If you haven't made friends in your local sangha then why not? After one year and not having been on a single retreat, how the fuck would you even know? It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to avoid disappointment. Which is ultimately disappointing.
There is nothing better. There's only ideals and people that fail to live up to them. As it was, so shall it always be!
Glenn and his fancy talking mates are not arguing about the real world on his blog. They're arguing about ideas about the real world. Glenn was a Buddhist for decades, but most of them only seem to have vague ideas about what being a practising Buddhist is like. It's just intellectual porn.
You can't have relationships on the internet. To be human means coming down out of the clouds. We have to get dirty. Take risks. Fall in love. Then try to reclaim the projections. But it only works with real people. You can't do it on the internet.
We're often attracted to Buddhism in the first place because of all the cloud talk about enlightenment and perfection. But if we don't let our relationships grind that naivety out of us, then we never get beyond wanting Santa to come and save us.
I have no idea what your community is like. Maybe you'll find a better one. More this or more that. Whatever. But I guarantee you won't find a perfect one. In fact your teacher is probably fucking someone right now. So what? It's how you deal with your own emotional responses that matters. If you go off looking for perfection you risk finding a group that reinforces your prejudices and views, your stupidity and naivety. Then you are really in trouble.
There is nothing better than Buddhism. Nothing worse. There are just groups of people. Relationships are interactive. For goodness sake log off and go and talk to someone.
And if you cite my writing as a reason for quitting I shall come back to haunt you in my next life.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
PS Go see your elected representative and tell them what you think of the job they're doing. Get involved!
Enjoy your writing...your honesty...thank you...
hi jayarava,
thanks for sharing your personal journey. i've been casting around here in Melbourne for a sangha for pretty much the same reasons you've articulated and am inspired to have a look again at the FOTWB chapter here in Melbourne.
The bunch of secular buddhists I've hung out with a bit so far have been ok but are young and limited in their format (they haven't quite decided if they are a regular meditation class with retreat-on-selling or the seed of a community for example).
No reason to be exclusive of course - there are good people everywhere - but unfortunately not enough time in the evenings.
Also, I liked your reply to saibhu - it's important to commit - but for me, I haven't quite found the right sangha yet. Too picky perhaps? Or maybe not enough choices?
Anyway, thanks again,
jonckher
Dear Jayarava,
thanks for your honest reply.
Buddhism is about reflecting on the experience of disappointment, not avoiding it.
What if that's not what Buddhism is about in my sangha? What if, in my opinion, the effect Buddhism has on the members of my sangha is in fact avoiding disappointment?
You're totally right. I'm only flirting. But maybe there's a reason for that. Not every flirt turns into a committed long-time relationship. And that's probably a good thing. But I didn't write my initial comment to talk about my sangha.
For one I wanted to thank you for your post and telling you that it inspired me to think about certain things. Yes, the internet cannot provide real human relationship (i never thought it could), but it can be a way of sharing thoughts and ideas, maybe not like a real conversation can, but more like a book or a piece of music does.
And one of the thoughts I had reading your text was: If quite some people are not there for "Buddhism" but for something else, maybe we could create something else that suits them/us better? Is a ancient asian religion really the best fit for us with our european cultural background?
There's only ideals and people that fail to live up to them.
You can't really change people. But you certainly can change ideals and structures. This has happened throughout history and it will continue to happen.
Go see your elected representative and tell them what you think of the job they're doing. Get involved!
I'm going to do that. Even if it's only to prove you wrong about the impact of the internet ;)
And if you cite my writing as a reason for quitting I shall come back to haunt you in my next life.
Actually, I'm willing to risk that ;)
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Saibhu
Greetings and Salutations: I have just discovered your blog, and will spend some time reading it. I appreciate your openness and honesty. I am also a long-time Buddhist, more a self-directed solo practitioner, although with a great group of dharma friends that I meet once a month. I too have been reading Gombrich and Hamilton's books, and am working on a dissertation about the meaning of anatta. I especially like your post on 'what the Buddha means by Loka'and will keep reading.'
Namaste
Hi JPS
With reference to anatta one question which fascinates me is that no Brahmin every mentions it, let alone has an opinion on it; the Buddha never discusses it with a Brahmin. How does one explain this if it is the view of Brahmins.
The Buddha discusses Jain ideas with Jains, Ājīvaka ideas with Ājīvakas, and Brahmin ideas with Brahmins. But never attā with Brhamins.
When I say "never" I am relying on my own unpublished survey of Brahmanical religious ideas found throughout the canon.
There is a blog on it from 2 years ago Early Buddhists and ātman/brahman.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Jayarava,
Firstly i want to thank you for your blog I have recently just found it and have enjoyed reading some of your blogs.
Have not read all as of yet but will read them over time. What I have read so far has been wonderful and to be honest i don't read the comments.
As I am more concerned about the subjects and contemplating and forming my own feelings.
I would hate to see you stop writing but can understand why. And just my two cents worth ignore the nay sayers because your writing still does
connect with people within the sangha and those looking into it.
Chris Young
I've really enjoyed Jayarava's Raves & found your work here thought-provoking & well-thought, which I appreciate so much. So thank you. I'll keep looking for you in the hope & expectation that something will compel you to speak out again. This is so true:
"Ethics is really only empathetic relationships, nothing more, but nothing less. You can't practice outside of human relationships."
Leamur
I'm still blogging, just else where. I've had a few articles on Renegade Economist, and I have another blog called Modern Debt Jubilee which is more a collection of interesting stuff with occasional comment by me.
Hi Jayarava. I've found your blog late in its history. Hope to be able to read it all before it disappears. Thanks for your words, they're good ones.
Dear Jayarava
Many thanks for this heart-felt post, which I've been mulling over these last few weeks.... sorry for my long reply.
I salute your courage (or folly) of writing so personally & with such self-disclosure on the internet. What a beautiful web of friendships, if you don't mind me saying so. Kalyana mitrata. There's a french bon-mot which goes something like 'life is series of meetings (encounters).'
It got me thinking about whether a 'spiritual' or 'religious' autobiography is somehow different from any other form of autobiography? Or indeed, somehow different from any 'normal' biography? How does one's inner-life impact upon one's outer-life & visa-versa ?
"I must tell you now that Buddhism does not emphasize one’s personal story, but rather the practice of mind studying the mind." Joan Halifax Roshi, A Buddhist Life in America
A true telling of one's spiritual life is more than just a lineage list of 'my teachers'; it must be something that takes the writer to his or her core-themes, core-lessons to be learnt. The 'lived experience-giving-rise-to-awakened action' aspect rather than the 'ideas-i-have thought-about' aspect.
“Our own lives are the instrument with which we experiment with truth.” — Thay Thich Nhat Hanh
Interesting to read that in your case, like many others, the spiritual life opens via a door of suffering. Your post reminds me somewhat of Sangharakashita's writings, the more autobiographical ones, where he writes in the first person, staying close to the narrative of his life.
"If you are genuinely committed to the spiritual path the time will come when you will be able to look back and see that great changes have taken place. You will see that you have grown, even that you have been transformed." Going for Refuge - Sangharakshita
"I've watched many people be transformed by our practices and it still gives me a buzz watching friends striving to be better people, and succeeding in whatever degree." - Jayarava
Actions speak louder than words.
I concur with you that what one does & how one behaves is a better indicator of what one truly values than what one thinks about … however I would add that we all get locked into habits & delusions that are estranged from our deepest intentions… so our failings aren't always intentional but rather more a form of unaware mechanical repetition (the metaphor of endless rebirth is powerful here). At least, not intentional at the deepest level. That's why it's inspirational to read how life might be different…
"You can't practice outside of human relationships" as you put it. Sangha can fulfill our need for belonging & support as well as our need for feedback & to have our actions mirrored back to ourselves. Awakening is a collective effort, as you have often pointed out, not least in your post 'having your cake & sharing it', for which I thank you, O Blogging Dharmacārin.
One of the really useful - sadly little known but much needed - contributions of the Triratna Order is Team-based Right Livelihood businesses, where the work place isn't just a chance to practice Right Livelihood but also to generate Dana, generosity. This simply isn't something you can do alone! BTW, I feel that politically engaged Buddhism has more to offer than only doing the contesting & the protesting. It must propose an economic alternative.
I see my parenting of my two children & my being a husband right at the very centre of my practice. Living in a family situation very quickly points out one's shortfalls in behaviour! Family-life can also nourish, transform & support. I also acknowledge the support, friendship & the chance to practice together that I get from being a non-residential lay friend of Plum Village sangha here in the Dordogne. When I go into the painted caves here in SW France, I experience a profound feeling of belonging with my fellow artist-painters, albeit that I am from a different time, different world-view & different techniques. My own personal painting practice has been profoundly influenced by actually physically painting alongside some other fellow painters & other forms of exchanges with painters more advanced than myself. Confirm from my own experience that no-one ever learnt to paint from a book (though this hasn't stopped me from writing one) but a book can be a useful aid. Having lead quiet a few residential painting workshops over the years, I can confirm that creativity can really flourish in a group. Group psychology isn't the same as individual psychology. Getting involved is essential.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If sangha is so vital to our practice, then each of us as individuals should reflect on how we protect & nourish our sangha. You might be interested in The Tenth Mindfulness Training of The Order of Interbeing (Plum Village) : Protecting and Nourishing the Sangha
Wishing you happy continuation on your path :-)
Post a Comment