Very interesting, thanks. I tend to imagine that the shift you tell us about is the one which a semiotic would describe as that from symbol to allegory. The first one is lived from within, the second one is just a label. By the way, do you know of any contact of Saṅgharakṣita with Ambedkar's approach to Buddhism? And what do you think of it? There seem to be some basic similarities (especially as for the anti-dogmatism and the usage of Buddhism in a new way).
Friday, May 13, 2011
Mike Leznoff said...
I really enjoyed your article and I agree with your position about "Wesak Day". You favour the use of "Buddha Day" and I respect that, yet I have an additional question: As someone who has been connected to the movement for seven years as a mitra and as someone going for refuge within the context of the ordination program (simply to state my connection with the Order), what do you think of "Enlightenment Day"? I ask this not to attack Sangharakshita's decision to call it "Buddha Day", but to suggest that "Englightenment Day" may communicate in our society more directly the purpose of the day, deliberately naming how it is different from secular mindfulness programs, for example. Though Sangharakshita's vision may have been radical forty years ago, all movements require periodic rejuvenation in order to be most relevant to a society changing around them- the content need never change, but the forms can, if we are flexible. I suggest this idea in the hope that it will spurn further discussion- to play with ideas and to challenge our attachments, even with the word 'Buddha' or 'Buddhism'. No matter what is said of this discussion, I think it will make, in the best sense, little difference in that, as Victor Hugo said, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come," and certainly Buddhism and meditation are ideas whose time has come to flourish in the West. Though discussion is good, I think practice is better, for as another noted practitioner from the Zen tradition recently said, "The Dharma will survive our best efforts". It is my sincerest hope that the Dharma comes to thrive in and transform this British society I live in. It will take decades and centuries, but I'd rather have it happen sooner than later and wish to encourage its rapid and pure fruition. With great respect and thanks for your efforts, thank-you
I think I understand. We want a symbol rather than a mere interpretation. Something that speaks to the heart, that moves us; rather than an idea (though of course you and I, at least, can be moved by ideas as well!). The Buddha, along with the Dharma and Sangha are our principle symbols - they polyvalent and we can draw out everything from them by a variety of processes - etymology, history, etc. So to my mind it is important to focus on these symbols and work on developing the symbolism. It's a new symbol - sometimes people respond more to Western symbols, and find Buddhist symbols don't move them. It can be puzzling for the convert - many of us love the artistic traditions of European Christianity: Italian sculpture and painting, German music, etc.
Sangharakshita met Dr Ambedkar several times shortly before his death. The story is recounted in The Rainbow Road (previous published as The 1000 Petalled Lotus). He also wrote a book called Ambedkar and Buddhism - online as a pdf.
I'm not sure if they had enough contact to constitute an influence one way or the other. Perhaps it was just a meeting of like minds?
Dr Ambedkar is quite an important figure for us (for me) but very much more so in India amongst our Order there. You will often find pictures of Dr Ambedkar on a Triratna Shrine, always in India, but often here as well. Locally we celebrate his birthday and his conversion or dikṣa. Nagpur and the dikṣabhūmi is on the pilgrimage circuit, though not as high up as Bodhgaya or other places associated with the Buddha - I haven't been, but I'd like to. I have friends in or from Nagpur.
As for his influence on me, I would say it is not intellectual - I'm not very influenced by his ideas directly and have not read his books. However I find his story very moving. He overcame great odds. And this man who rejected everything about his past embraced Buddhism! However I recall the first time I saw his 22 vows - which his followers in India still take - and I thought, "these are not for me". I was a bit shocked, but I know a few Dalits and I can see why such sentiments would appeal to them, and even be necessary. For Dalits he is a bodhisattva. He certainly was extraordinary.
Here's the thing. We have these three important symbols - the triratnāḥ, the Three Jewels. I wrote a bit about them when we changed our name to the Triratna Buddhist Order. As I said back then, an even better translation would be the "three precious gifts." This set of three festivals each celebrates one of the three precious gifts. It's part of a whole, part of a system. We can't change one part of the system without affecting the rest. And how would not celebrating the Buddha affect what we do? Have you thought about that?
Sure, we are interested in enlightenment, but it's rather abstract. And to be honest I don't think it moves people. It doesn't move me. In fact I recently realised that I don't really understand what is meant by Enlightenment in the traditional sense. It's an abstraction that one cannot really go for refuge to. The Buddha on the other hand, as my friend Elisa points out above, is a symbol with all kinds of associations, within a network of meaningful connections. He is our ur-symbol, our original and fundamental symbol. The Buddha, the idea of an actual human being who has achieved liberation is a far more powerful symbol than mere idea of liberation. And this is why Dr Ambedkar is such a strong symbol for the Dalits - there are people alive who met their saviour. He will continue to symbolise the struggle against oppression in India for centuries I imagine.
The word enlightenment is not etymologically connected with the word bodhi which it translates. We use "enlightenment" because Mr and Mrs Rhys Davids wanted to explicitly identify the Buddha with the great figures of the European Enlightenment. They wanted the Buddha to be seen as this rational alternative to an irrational God; and Buddhism as a rational alternative to Christianity. So they used this jargon redolent with associations in the Victorian mind. Since then Romanticism has changed the way we view the European Enlightenment of course, and the Triratna movement has stronger connections to the Romantic movement than to the Enlightenment - but that is the origin of our translation. In some ways it's worse than Wesak!
Bodhi means 'understanding, awakening; - it's an action noun, i.e. the name of a process. Perhaps we could celebrate that, but again for most of us it's just an abstract idea. We don't really understand it, because we have not woken up to it yet! "Buddha", from the same root √bhū, but using the past participle indicating an action completed is something else again. Just knowing that there is a process is one thing, but knowing that it was completed, by a human being, is of another order all together.
I'm all for challenging tradition and pursuing rejuvenation. It's what this blog is about in some ways, and it is certainly part of the ethos of the Order. But I'm also a conservative in many ways. I know you have respect, and I honour that, but I don't think you are seeing the big picture. You don't seem to grasp the importance of the Buddha - the person of the Buddha or his symbolic resonance. You don't seem to be alone in that, but I would be doubtful about taking the discussion further before sorting this out. It is interesting that the gist of recent communications from Sangharakṣita and Subhūti is that this problem of not understanding the central importance of the Buddha is widespread in the Order as well! And when I asked if I could quote Sangharakṣita he said "by all means". So we have some work to do!
What is the Order? The Order is a vehicle for people with shared values and ideals to work together to create the conditions for awakening. I don't do what I do for myself, I do it for the Order - to contribute to the conditions for awakening. (This is where I differ from secular Buddhists who all seem to be ardent individualists). Collectively we uphold a set of values and ideals, and we do this because they give our lives meaning, and our actions purpose. If we did not share a vision then we would not be able to work effectively - though there is often a greater diversity of thought amongst us than you would find in a traditional Buddhist group.
As I said to you on Facebook, one of the principles we follow is that only Order members get a direct say in how the Order is run. Why? Sangharakshita has written about this, especially about his experiences with the Mahābodhi Society - which in the 1950s at least was run by Hindus hostile to the stated aims of the society. Only the fully committed get to make decisions, though of course expressing opinions and having discussions is how the provisionally committed test the waters.
Many people make the mistake of setting out to change something when they do not fully understand it. How many of us have taken something apart, only to find we could not put it back together? Joining the order can be a long process. It took me about 12 years in total - 10 after I asked for ordination. During that time of training it is you that has to change, not the Order (though the Order is of course always changing, but it changes slower than you so Zeno's Paradox does not apply - in case you were wondering). You align yourself with the values of the Order, not the other way around. It's not compulsory to join or align yourself with us, but that is the way in: practice the Dharma, show us you can be effective, and demonstrate an appreciation and even a dedication to the values and aims of the Order.
My sense is that you have not yet grasped the significance of the issue, nor it's breadth and complexity. So in any discussion we need to go back to fundamentals - what is our refuge? And I think this is not the kind of discussion one can profitably carry out in this format. But look me up when you're next in Cambridge! I'm not saying don't express an opinion, I'm saying there is a lot more here than meets the eye, and I'd love to talk it over with you.
Best Wishes Jayarava
PS. Using (short) paragraphs really helps online readability.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Mike Leznoff said...
I would not normally post a link on your blog, respectfully trying to keep all conversations here but there is some news posted on the Triratna website which directly relates to this discussion:
In response to one comment you made above I must say I do have, contrary to your comment, a grasp of "the importance of the Buddha - the person of the Buddha and his symbolic resonance". At the very least we would not be having this conversation if not for the Buddha's life, his extraordinary achievements, the profundity of his teachings and his lifelong efforts to share the Dharma he fully ascertained. I am grateful to the Buddha for that every day. The life of the Buddha is incredible and 2500 years later directly shapes my life even as I type these words.
Yet I sense the British public is less responsive to another 'savior' figure, having given Jesus a try for a while, and are more curious and receptive, not to (as they see it) the life-story of a near mythic person from long ago- the Buddha, but to how transformation is possible right now.
The radical idea is not the historical Buddha- though everything about his life can be helpful (though mistaken worship to an exterior force outside ourselves can hinder development and can be no different from worshiping Christ, which is I think what people first think we are peddling). The radical idea IS Enlightenment, and as the language of this society is English, and the word we use for that ineffable experience Buddha had in Bodhgaya is Enlightenment, and, because the average person in this culture isn't going to first think of 15th century European Enlightenment when he sees the word, especially within the context at a Buddhist festival or Buddhist discussion, I think it's a good idea.
Considering this point I hope helps the success of Buddhism in the UK and hope it helps the growth of the Order in the UK (other emphasis might suit other cultures better- I hear in the Mexico City Buddhist Centre that puja is very well attended (200+). At one point we were all 'the general public', but something magically drew us to the Dharma and to the TBO (sorry to use the short-form), yet the TBO in the UK is experiencing declining numbers and an aging membership and I hope to help reverse those trends (we've been street meditating in Cardiff recently, for example- very well received!).
'The general public' IS our society, it is the ground inwhich we work and is the field of beings which we can most immediately and effectively practice the compassion of sharing the Dharma with. Buddhism is hopefully not just for intellectuals, but for everyone. The simple yet supremely profound truths of Buddhism, the most absolute realisations, are not something that require extreme intellect to know- I often think whatever intelligence I do have often acts as an impediment (one of many I have) to enlightenment and to deeper realisations of compassion.
Drawn from "the general public" are the people, or their children, who will become the Buddhists of the future in our society. Presenting the Dharma in a way that is appealing to them is an act of compassion on our part. They or their children etc, will become the Buddhists in future.
As for my ordination, it can come when it does, or not, it is not up to me and I simply use it as a further encouragement to practice and to form and deepen connections within the movement. Of course Order members collectively and exclusively decide how the order expresses itself or not, but I hope that it is open to considering ideas, regardless of where they originate from, if they benefit the spread of the Dharma and foster the promotion of the Sangha.
Firstly don't abbreviate our name to an acronym. Just don't let it creep in. At least not on my blog. "Triratna" is acceptable if a short form is required, but not the meaningless acronym.
Anyway you've said it, haven't you. Enlightenment is an idea. I don't understand it, and that makes me a bit suspicious since I do little else but study it. I have been a Buddhist for 18 years, and ordained for 6. Basically most people are not moved by ideas, especially vague abstractions whereas symbols do move people. And this is Sangharakshitavada 101.
I've not heard that our numbers are declining. If anything the opposite is true. In India, where they are vastly more conservative than the UK they simply cannot meet the demand - they need 10,000 Dhamma workers and are trying to train that many at Nāgaloka!
It is true that all around the western world Buddhist groups are still mainly drawing on the Baby Boomer generation and a bit after. I'm not sure that tearing down our institutions and replacing them with popular ideology is the way to address this.
Mike, I'm not following the bulk of what you are arguing here. I don't see the relevance of the things that concern you to our discussion.
For instance I don't think in the Triratna movement we have ever portrayed the Buddha as a saviour figure. And anyone that might attend a festival is cognizant of this, as you are. I don't see how this can be a genuine problem. This whole thing seems spurious. It's not a problem I've ever encountered in practice.
You seem to be saying we need to abandon our principles and become popularist. This is just an ideology that happens to be popular at the moment. Like commodification. It's what all the political parties in the West are doing. I think I'd rather die than see the Triratna movement abandon it's principles to popularism.
I'm sure you feel all this is relevant, but I don't. You still haven't convinced me that you understand the issues, or the importance of the Buddha to our movement.
Hi there, thank you for this post. I completely agree with everything you have to say about commodification and commoditization (handy new word, thanks!) and have noticed both at our own center.
I still have something I want to clarify with you. Per my last point on the FB discussion, quoted below, my question for you: do you see any value in making connections with other Buddhist groups? I do not mean doing what everyone else is doing, to get along or not offend. I mean connecting on the basis of a shared commitment to the Buddha. To me there is value in that, in and of itself. I don't know that I have many specific ideas about what it would look like (I suppose I could ask order members who are involved in various unions and alliances, attend teachers' conferences, etc.). But certainly different traditions can learn from each other without becoming indistinguishable? And the institutions and leaders of those traditions can probably benefit from mutual support. And having a better understanding of other traditions could challenge the degree to which, in my opinion, distinctiveness and a sense of superiority have been intertwined in the Triratna tradition, perhaps more so in the past.
I think we should embrace opportunities that connect us with others and also encourage us not to think too pridefully and insularly about our own precious (in multiple senses) sangha.
So, I'm curious what you think of all that in general, regardless of the accuracy or usefulness of Wesak.
Thanks for all your thoughtfulness, Dhivajri
Dhivajri
-------------------------- From my last post to the previous FB discussion: Buddha Day is fine (if goofy sounding) with me, in and of itself. Have Buddha Day at our local centers, celebrate Wesak with others? I don't know. Again, my point was not that we use Wesak so we'll fit in, but as a way to connect. I don't think fitting in/conforming is the same thing as reaching out/connecting. I don't think we should overlook such opportunities."
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Glenn Wallis said...
Courage to you, Jayarava. You certainly are deserving of your name!
Thanks for asking your question here, and giving your own answer.
No doubt we can learn from others, but I worry that most of us have yet to fully appreciate what we have. Isn't this what Sangharakshita has been saying lately?
I understand that your situation may be different from the ones I'm familiar with in the UK or NZ or even online. But you started of by saying that we need to connect on "shared commitment to the Buddha" and you ended by saying that you used the name Wesak as a way to connect. If we connect on the level of the refuges, then what we call our festival is irrelevant. Isn't it?
My feeling is that we are not the only ones who risk superiority with distinctiveness - everyone does. No traditional Buddhist would abandon the distinctive trappings of their religion to suit us - no robed monk is going to dress down because we don't dress up, for instance. And what worries me more than superiority (since life is a trickster and will sort out inflation with a prick) is inferiority and blandness. Sure, let's mix and mingle, but we don't have to be chameleons or wallflowers. We are a lively bunch. What's that Goethe quote: "...boldness has genius, magic, and power in it".
Readers often accuse me of qualities like arrogance or ill-will because of what, or how, I write. These days, at least, I don't set out to write arrogantly or angrily, I set out to discover some truth. Not being very stylish, I don't think much about my writing style, to the exasperation of any editors I've interacted with. If I'm swayed by reviews I start trying to second guess what will be popular and the writing suffers. When I try to write something because I think people will like it, the readership generally drops and the comments dry up. So I try to just stick to writing about what interests me, what moves me, or what I'm curious about. This seldom takes in world events or trendy topics, but it is surprising how often it touches people. I have to be true to my muse, or she abandons me. I can't make people like me. I have to allow the world the choice to like me or not, though I certainly feel no compunction to collude with those who don't like me (I don't publish every comment I get on this blog for instance!) I'm glad that at least some people seem to 'get it'.
I assume that the Order must do something similar. If we approach others on the basis of wanting acceptance or approval then we are in trouble. Back in about 1988 I wrote a song that contained the lines:
I'm looking for approval, In the eyes of a stranger, It's no wonder I feel so strange.
The name was given in part to mark qualities I already possess, but also to remind me that the buddhajayantī is my goal. My true 'jayasya ravaḥ' has yet to be heard.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Mike Leznoff said...
Hello- Thank-you for all your very thoughtful comments. I want to apologise for one comment I wrote above. After spending such a beautiful day with the Cardiff Sangha celebrating the life of the Buddha and his Enlightenment, I must say my comment "The radical idea is not the historical Buddha", is not right. It was wrong to say that. His life IS radical and very relevant. Thanks again, and I look forward to having a chat over tea with you.
Hope you had an inspiring & rejuvenating Buddha/Wesak day :-)
Actually, i noticed that wesak is something of a moveable feast being on different days in different countries... which confused me, so I just stuck with the full moon. Not a bad idea to have something rooted in nature & cosmos rather than cultural relativities. Staying with the moon also takes us closer to the story of Buddha's sighting of the morning star upon awakening.
Thanks for writing & sharing. I benefit greatly.
ps. talking of occidental/oriental imagery, is that a sunflower or a lotus (not a blue nile lotus) that the mediatator is sitting on in the illustration that goes with?
There's only one reason the moon is so significant in ancient calenders - it's because there were few other ways to mark the passage of time. For a group of forest dwellers wanting to meet together on a regular basis longer than every other day, the moon provided the only reference point. One can meet on the full moon and new moon which is about every two weeks, and this is what Buddhists and other ancients did.
There's no sign of this being of magical or mystical significance in the Pāli texts. It's just a way of dividing up time. And it's not a very good one because it doesn't coincide with the solar year very well - 365.25 doesn't divide evenly by 29.5 ... each year 11.25 days are unaccounted for!
When the lunar month and it's divisions became a superstition is a mystery to me, as is the fact of it retaining it's mystical significance in the modern west. I think we just like superstitions and mysticism because we are naive. We still think that ignorance is bliss, and this is of course one of the strong theme of Christian myth - Adam and Eve were blissfully ignorant and suffered having gained knowledge of good and evil. I think it represents a rather infantile longing for the innocence of childhood.
Similarly I have no idea when the story of the Buddha seeing the morning star upon awakening arose - but it's not in the early accounts. It's just an elaboration, no doubt fuelled by superstition.
The great thing about the European Enlightenment is that it began to free us from ignorant superstition. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is miserable.
I had not noticed the extent to which my stylised lotuses resemble sunflowers, but I am a great fan of them and usually grow a few in my tiny urban garden each year. They may be a more relevant symbol for me because I did try to grow lotuses indoors and they just died in the winter. The sunflower may well replace the lotus in my Buddhist imagery. Thanks for pointing this out!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
[Image]IN THE TRIRATNA MOVEMENT, like many other Buddhist groups, we celebrate the Buddha's awakening about now, to coincide with the 2nd full moon after the Vernal Equinox. We call this festival Buddha Day, and it is trined with Dharma Day, two full moons later in July, and Sangha Day in November (a non-traditional date I think). I note that my local centre is celebrating Wesak this year instead of Buddha Day, and that Wesak has been creeping into our vocabulary. To my consternation I note that our main website has Wesak as the name of this festival as well.
The word buddha is, of course, the past-participle of the verbal root √budh 'to understand, to wake up'. It's often said that Buddha is a title, but in fact it is a description. In calling Gautama 'the Buddha' we are saying that he is someone who has woken up or understood. On Buddha Day we celebrate the fact of his having woken up.
Wesak, usually pronounced with wes to rhyme with 'mess' by English speakers, is the Sinhalese (corrupt) pronunciation of the Pali name of the 2nd lunar month of the ancient Indian calendar. In Sanskrit it is vaiśākha, and in Pali vesākha. The full title should be in Sanskrit vaiśākha-pūrṇimā and in Pali vesākha-puṇṇamī. The name itself has little spiritual significance. Vaiśākha means 'connected with visākha' and visākha means 'branched or forked' from vi- (divided, originally from dvi 'two') and sākha (a branch). And pūrṇimā means 'full moon.' So it just means the full moon day of the second lunar month, in an archaic calender that called the Spring Equinox New Year.
Most South-East Asian countries follow the Sinhalese by calling the festival some phonetic variant of the Pali vesākha. Burma, apparently, uses their own name for the same lunar month: Kason. The rest of the Buddhist world which celebrates the festival usually opt for a local name. In Japan it is hanamatsuri (花祭), literally 'flower festival'. In Tibet they say sagé dawa (sa ga'i zla ba ས་གའི་ཟླ་བ) which is also just the name of the lunar month in which the festival occurs, though their calendar is a bit different. And so on.
So there's nothing special or particularly significant about the name Wesak. The direct equivalent would be calling our festival "May Full Moon"or just "May", and mispronouncing the words slightly.
In India two different Sanskrit terms are used. 1. buddha-pūrṇimā 'Buddha full moon' - where pūrṇimā, again, means 'full moon'; and 2. buddha-jayantī 'the Buddha's victory', where jayantī means 'victorious'. I'm not sure why the feminine is used, but it clearly comes from the present participle jayanta 'victorious' of the verb √ji 'to conquer'. These two at least have the advantage of stating explicitly that they celebrate Gautama having awakened, and jayantī is really quite descriptive. The festival celebrates the Buddha's victory over dukkha ( or death, or Māra, etc.), and it just happens to be on the full moon day of the second lunar month of the old Indian calendar because that's the traditional date.
Calling the festival Buddha Day, as opposed to one or other of the Asian Buddhist terms, was doubtless part of Sangharakshita's conscious break with traditional Buddhism in the late 1960s. In a recent communique to the Triratna Movement he said: The Triratna Buddhist Order and Community is not a continuation of the Tibetan tradition, or of any other particular Buddhist tradition. The particular iconographic, theoretical, and ritual frameworks of Tibetan or other traditions are not our reference point. This should be plain from the imagery, ceremonies, and rhetoric in common use in the Triratna Buddhist Community.When I asked him what he though about this creep towards using Wesak he replied: "So far as I am concerned, it is Buddha Day, to correspond with Dharma Day and Sangha Day. I don’t know how the term Wesak has crept in. It was, however, in common use among English Buddhists, mainly Theravadins, many years ago. I think the Buddhist Society still uses the term." It's been suggested to me, in a discussion about this issue on Facebook, that one of reasons for using Wesak is that everyone is doing it. And yet for four decades we have been critical of this kind of group-think, of doing things just to fit in. I don't find this reasoning very convincing. It's clear that we are celebrating the Buddha's enlightenment, and not any particular traditional observance.
I've given some thought to this matter and have wondered whether the drift into using a traditional title for the festival is symptomatic of the commodification and commoditization of Buddhism. Commodification is the process of assigning monetary value to something that has previously been priceless: a move from social value to market value. This is one of the most potent forces in Western society at present - so that we truly are in a position these days to know 'the price of everything and the value of nothing' (Oscar Wilde. Lord Darlington, Act III). Commoditization on the other hand is when a different brands of a product become indistinguishable to the consumer. This tends to cancel out decisions based on features and causes consumers to decide on price - often leading to price wars.
If you go to a good book store they will have several dozen books on Buddhism, not to mention CDs and DVDs. Old classics go out of print and an endless stream of new books come out each year. Few of them add much to the gene pool. Most recycle what are becoming clichés. At the same time Buddhism is repackaged as lifestyle advice and sold under various guises. Although some centres operate on a donation basis, most of us have mortgages to pay, so our classes cost money. Of itself this is not necessarily a bad thing. But there is little in the popular imagination to distinguish what we do, from what the local Yoga centre, or the local Mindfulness centre do. The market for meditation and wisdom teachings is becoming commodified. This is fuelled by monism - the belief that all spiritual traditions aim at one truth, that beneath the surface "all is one", and all religions are essentially the same. I don't think price, more than distinctive teachings, drives choices about which tradition we get involved with, but I do think things like physical proximity and convenient opening hours do.
On one hand perhaps some of us buy into the 'all is one' meme, and just want to get along with everyone? Perhaps we don't feel so confident these days and seek safety in numbers? Perhaps we ourselves have lost a sense of our distinctiveness, or perhaps we are afraid that in asserting our distinctiveness we risk rejection by traditional Buddhists (with more accusations of arrogance)? Perhaps we just are not really individuals in the full sense, and are too easily swayed by the popular.
On the other hand the best response to a commoditized market place is to increase the value of the product - so most of our centres offer a range of services. In addition to more or less secular meditation courses, as well as basic classes on Buddhism, and more in-depth and explicitly Buddhist instruction, we teach Hatha Yoga, Tai Chi, Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction. You also get access to a community of like minded individuals. And of course part of community life is collective practice and celebrations.
So the response and the situation are both complex. And I don't mean to suggest or imply that Triratna Buddhists knowingly or willingly pursue commodification and commoditization - I think the opposite is true, we generally resist it. It's happening around us though, and because it is the mindset of the wider society, we can't help but be influenced to some extent. Most of the people we interact with tacitly support this kind of change because it means that they are materially better off, at least in the short term. We probably unconsciously participate simply by being members of a particular kind of society and culture. I think it's important that we be aware of this trend and resist it. But we also need to resist the blending in and settling down tendency. Our movement began as an explicit break with tradition. We need to be wary of treating tradition as a fall back. Falling back on tradition would be a disaster for us.
And I think adopting the name Wesak is a bit like this. It's not the result of a conscious consensus to change. There's been no discussion about it. We're expressing a sense of lack, or even, from what some people say, a sense of discomfort or even dislike. I'm playing this up a bit to make a point. But also I happen to be in contact with a number of people, almost none of whom are part of our movement, who are very excited about breaking with tradition. They call themselves 'secular Buddhists', or even 'non-Buddhists', and they write wonderful searing polemics of tradition. Forty years ago what Sangharakshita did was radical and caused a stir in the establishment; and yes, even some hatred. His polemics made him very unpopular in some circles (e.g. Forty-Three Years Ago, and Was the Buddha a Bhikkhu?) Right now that same attitude is becoming hot. Once we were the world leaders in this, now we appear to be choosing to fit in. I was attracted to the Triratna Community for many reasons, not least of which was that it was and is a community. But I also liked the zeitgeist, the zeal and zest, as well as the idealism and ideals. I wanted to believe. 18 years on I'm older and more cynical, and perhaps a little wiser.
I hope I'm not merely being cynical in criticising the use of Wesak. It's not a name that speaks to me the way that Buddha Day does. Some of my friends feel differently and it occurred to me that public holidays here in the UK are rather prosaically named. In New Zealand we have Waitangi Day, ANZAC Day, The Queen's Birthday, Labour Day which are full of meaning and history for us. "The May Bank Holiday" doesn't ring any bells for me, while Buddha Day is familiar territory. For Brits it's the other way around.
If I thought anyone would take any notice, I would suggest we have it on the same date each year, the way that Shingon Buddhists celebrate Kūkai's birth on the 15th of June (15th day of the 6th month in the Japanese lunar calendar); or, say, on the second Sunday of May each year. Make a clean break of it. However we seem to be sentimental about the archaic Indian lunar calendar, even when we have almost no comprehension of it. I have to confess that every fact I cite about it here is recently looked up for the purposes of writing this.
The second full moon after the Vernal Equinox of 2011 is on Tuesday 17th May, and that is when I will be celebrating Buddha Day - the Triratna Movement festival celebrating the the Awakening of the Awakened One.
14 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formVery interesting, thanks. I tend to imagine that the shift you tell us about is the one which a semiotic would describe as that from symbol to allegory. The first one is lived from within, the second one is just a label.
By the way, do you know of any contact of Saṅgharakṣita with Ambedkar's approach to Buddhism? And what do you think of it? There seem to be some basic similarities (especially as for the anti-dogmatism and the usage of Buddhism in a new way).
Friday, May 13, 2011
I really enjoyed your article and I agree with your position about "Wesak Day". You favour the use of "Buddha Day" and I respect that, yet I have an additional question: As someone who has been connected to the movement for seven years as a mitra and as someone going for refuge within the context of the ordination program (simply to state my connection with the Order), what do you think of "Enlightenment Day"? I ask this not to attack Sangharakshita's decision to call it "Buddha Day", but to suggest that "Englightenment Day" may communicate in our society more directly the purpose of the day, deliberately naming how it is different from secular mindfulness programs, for example. Though Sangharakshita's vision may have been radical forty years ago, all movements require periodic rejuvenation in order to be most relevant to a society changing around them- the content need never change, but the forms can, if we are flexible. I suggest this idea in the hope that it will spurn further discussion- to play with ideas and to challenge our attachments, even with the word 'Buddha' or 'Buddhism'. No matter what is said of this discussion, I think it will make, in the best sense, little difference in that, as Victor Hugo said, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come," and certainly Buddhism and meditation are ideas whose time has come to flourish in the West. Though discussion is good, I think practice is better, for as another noted practitioner from the Zen tradition recently said, "The Dharma will survive our best efforts".
It is my sincerest hope that the Dharma comes to thrive in and transform this British society I live in. It will take decades and centuries, but I'd rather have it happen sooner than later and wish to encourage its rapid and pure fruition. With great respect and thanks for your efforts, thank-you
Friday, May 13, 2011
Hi Elisa,
I think I understand. We want a symbol rather than a mere interpretation. Something that speaks to the heart, that moves us; rather than an idea (though of course you and I, at least, can be moved by ideas as well!). The Buddha, along with the Dharma and Sangha are our principle symbols - they polyvalent and we can draw out everything from them by a variety of processes - etymology, history, etc. So to my mind it is important to focus on these symbols and work on developing the symbolism. It's a new symbol - sometimes people respond more to Western symbols, and find Buddhist symbols don't move them. It can be puzzling for the convert - many of us love the artistic traditions of European Christianity: Italian sculpture and painting, German music, etc.
Sangharakshita met Dr Ambedkar several times shortly before his death. The story is recounted in The Rainbow Road (previous published as The 1000 Petalled Lotus). He also wrote a book called Ambedkar and Buddhism - online as a pdf.
I'm not sure if they had enough contact to constitute an influence one way or the other. Perhaps it was just a meeting of like minds?
Dr Ambedkar is quite an important figure for us (for me) but very much more so in India amongst our Order there. You will often find pictures of Dr Ambedkar on a Triratna Shrine, always in India, but often here as well. Locally we celebrate his birthday and his conversion or dikṣa. Nagpur and the dikṣabhūmi is on the pilgrimage circuit, though not as high up as Bodhgaya or other places associated with the Buddha - I haven't been, but I'd like to. I have friends in or from Nagpur.
As for his influence on me, I would say it is not intellectual - I'm not very influenced by his ideas directly and have not read his books. However I find his story very moving. He overcame great odds. And this man who rejected everything about his past embraced Buddhism! However I recall the first time I saw his 22 vows - which his followers in India still take - and I thought, "these are not for me". I was a bit shocked, but I know a few Dalits and I can see why such sentiments would appeal to them, and even be necessary. For Dalits he is a bodhisattva. He certainly was extraordinary.
Ciao
Jayarava
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Hi Mike,
The long answer: part 1.
Here's the thing. We have these three important symbols - the triratnāḥ, the Three Jewels. I wrote a bit about them when we changed our name to the Triratna Buddhist Order. As I said back then, an even better translation would be the "three precious gifts." This set of three festivals each celebrates one of the three precious gifts. It's part of a whole, part of a system. We can't change one part of the system without affecting the rest. And how would not celebrating the Buddha affect what we do? Have you thought about that?
Sure, we are interested in enlightenment, but it's rather abstract. And to be honest I don't think it moves people. It doesn't move me. In fact I recently realised that I don't really understand what is meant by Enlightenment in the traditional sense. It's an abstraction that one cannot really go for refuge to. The Buddha on the other hand, as my friend Elisa points out above, is a symbol with all kinds of associations, within a network of meaningful connections. He is our ur-symbol, our original and fundamental symbol. The Buddha, the idea of an actual human being who has achieved liberation is a far more powerful symbol than mere idea of liberation. And this is why Dr Ambedkar is such a strong symbol for the Dalits - there are people alive who met their saviour. He will continue to symbolise the struggle against oppression in India for centuries I imagine.
The word enlightenment is not etymologically connected with the word bodhi which it translates. We use "enlightenment" because Mr and Mrs Rhys Davids wanted to explicitly identify the Buddha with the great figures of the European Enlightenment. They wanted the Buddha to be seen as this rational alternative to an irrational God; and Buddhism as a rational alternative to Christianity. So they used this jargon redolent with associations in the Victorian mind. Since then Romanticism has changed the way we view the European Enlightenment of course, and the Triratna movement has stronger connections to the Romantic movement than to the Enlightenment - but that is the origin of our translation. In some ways it's worse than Wesak!
Bodhi means 'understanding, awakening; - it's an action noun, i.e. the name of a process. Perhaps we could celebrate that, but again for most of us it's just an abstract idea. We don't really understand it, because we have not woken up to it yet! "Buddha", from the same root √bhū, but using the past participle indicating an action completed is something else again. Just knowing that there is a process is one thing, but knowing that it was completed, by a human being, is of another order all together.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
@Mike: The long answer: part 2.
I'm all for challenging tradition and pursuing rejuvenation. It's what this blog is about in some ways, and it is certainly part of the ethos of the Order. But I'm also a conservative in many ways. I know you have respect, and I honour that, but I don't think you are seeing the big picture. You don't seem to grasp the importance of the Buddha - the person of the Buddha or his symbolic resonance. You don't seem to be alone in that, but I would be doubtful about taking the discussion further before sorting this out. It is interesting that the gist of recent communications from Sangharakṣita and Subhūti is that this problem of not understanding the central importance of the Buddha is widespread in the Order as well! And when I asked if I could quote Sangharakṣita he said "by all means". So we have some work to do!
What is the Order? The Order is a vehicle for people with shared values and ideals to work together to create the conditions for awakening. I don't do what I do for myself, I do it for the Order - to contribute to the conditions for awakening. (This is where I differ from secular Buddhists who all seem to be ardent individualists). Collectively we uphold a set of values and ideals, and we do this because they give our lives meaning, and our actions purpose. If we did not share a vision then we would not be able to work effectively - though there is often a greater diversity of thought amongst us than you would find in a traditional Buddhist group.
As I said to you on Facebook, one of the principles we follow is that only Order members get a direct say in how the Order is run. Why? Sangharakshita has written about this, especially about his experiences with the Mahābodhi Society - which in the 1950s at least was run by Hindus hostile to the stated aims of the society. Only the fully committed get to make decisions, though of course expressing opinions and having discussions is how the provisionally committed test the waters.
Many people make the mistake of setting out to change something when they do not fully understand it. How many of us have taken something apart, only to find we could not put it back together? Joining the order can be a long process. It took me about 12 years in total - 10 after I asked for ordination. During that time of training it is you that has to change, not the Order (though the Order is of course always changing, but it changes slower than you so Zeno's Paradox does not apply - in case you were wondering). You align yourself with the values of the Order, not the other way around. It's not compulsory to join or align yourself with us, but that is the way in: practice the Dharma, show us you can be effective, and demonstrate an appreciation and even a dedication to the values and aims of the Order.
My sense is that you have not yet grasped the significance of the issue, nor it's breadth and complexity. So in any discussion we need to go back to fundamentals - what is our refuge? And I think this is not the kind of discussion one can profitably carry out in this format. But look me up when you're next in Cambridge! I'm not saying don't express an opinion, I'm saying there is a lot more here than meets the eye, and I'd love to talk it over with you.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
PS. Using (short) paragraphs really helps online readability.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
I would not normally post a link on your blog, respectfully trying to keep all conversations here but there is some news posted on the Triratna website which directly relates to this discussion:
http://fwbo-news.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipswich-buddhist-centre-celebrates.html
In response to one comment you made above I must say I do have, contrary to your comment, a grasp of "the importance of the Buddha - the person of the Buddha and his symbolic resonance". At the very least we would not be having this conversation if not for the Buddha's life, his extraordinary achievements, the profundity of his teachings and his lifelong efforts to share the Dharma he fully ascertained. I am grateful to the Buddha for that every day. The life of the Buddha is incredible and 2500 years later directly shapes my life even as I type these words.
Yet I sense the British public is less responsive to another 'savior' figure, having given Jesus a try for a while, and are more curious and receptive, not to (as they see it) the life-story of a near mythic person from long ago- the Buddha, but to how transformation is possible right now.
The radical idea is not the historical Buddha- though everything about his life can be helpful (though mistaken worship to an exterior force outside ourselves can hinder development and can be no different from worshiping Christ, which is I think what people first think we are peddling). The radical idea IS Enlightenment, and as the language of this society is English, and the word we use for that ineffable experience Buddha had in Bodhgaya is Enlightenment, and, because the average person in this culture isn't going to first think of 15th century European Enlightenment when he sees the word, especially within the context at a Buddhist festival or Buddhist discussion, I think it's a good idea.
Considering this point I hope helps the success of Buddhism in the UK and hope it helps the growth of the Order in the UK (other emphasis might suit other cultures better- I hear in the Mexico City Buddhist Centre that puja is very well attended (200+). At one point we were all 'the general public', but something magically drew us to the Dharma and to the TBO (sorry to use the short-form), yet the TBO in the UK is experiencing declining numbers and an aging membership and I hope to help reverse those trends (we've been street meditating in Cardiff recently, for example- very well received!).
'The general public' IS our society, it is the ground inwhich we work and is the field of beings which we can most immediately and effectively practice the compassion of sharing the Dharma with. Buddhism is hopefully not just for intellectuals, but for everyone. The simple yet supremely profound truths of Buddhism, the most absolute realisations, are not something that require extreme intellect to know- I often think whatever intelligence I do have often acts as an impediment (one of many I have) to enlightenment and to deeper realisations of compassion.
Drawn from "the general public" are the people, or their children, who will become the Buddhists of the future in our society. Presenting the Dharma in a way that is appealing to them is an act of compassion on our part. They or their children etc, will become the Buddhists in future.
As for my ordination, it can come when it does, or not, it is not up to me and I simply use it as a further encouragement to practice and to form and deepen connections within the movement. Of course Order members collectively and exclusively decide how the order expresses itself or not, but I hope that it is open to considering ideas, regardless of where they originate from, if they benefit the spread of the Dharma and foster the promotion of the Sangha.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Hi Mike,
Firstly don't abbreviate our name to an acronym. Just don't let it creep in. At least not on my blog. "Triratna" is acceptable if a short form is required, but not the meaningless acronym.
Anyway you've said it, haven't you. Enlightenment is an idea. I don't understand it, and that makes me a bit suspicious since I do little else but study it. I have been a Buddhist for 18 years, and ordained for 6. Basically most people are not moved by ideas, especially vague abstractions whereas symbols do move people. And this is Sangharakshitavada 101.
I've not heard that our numbers are declining. If anything the opposite is true. In India, where they are vastly more conservative than the UK they simply cannot meet the demand - they need 10,000 Dhamma workers and are trying to train that many at Nāgaloka!
It is true that all around the western world Buddhist groups are still mainly drawing on the Baby Boomer generation and a bit after. I'm not sure that tearing down our institutions and replacing them with popular ideology is the way to address this.
Mike, I'm not following the bulk of what you are arguing here. I don't see the relevance of the things that concern you to our discussion.
For instance I don't think in the Triratna movement we have ever portrayed the Buddha as a saviour figure. And anyone that might attend a festival is cognizant of this, as you are. I don't see how this can be a genuine problem. This whole thing seems spurious. It's not a problem I've ever encountered in practice.
You seem to be saying we need to abandon our principles and become popularist. This is just an ideology that happens to be popular at the moment. Like commodification. It's what all the political parties in the West are doing. I think I'd rather die than see the Triratna movement abandon it's principles to popularism.
I'm sure you feel all this is relevant, but I don't. You still haven't convinced me that you understand the issues, or the importance of the Buddha to our movement.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Hi there, thank you for this post. I completely agree with everything you have to say about commodification and commoditization (handy new word, thanks!) and have noticed both at our own center.
I still have something I want to clarify with you. Per my last point on the FB discussion, quoted below, my question for you: do you see any value in making connections with other Buddhist groups? I do not mean doing what everyone else is doing, to get along or not offend. I mean connecting on the basis of a shared commitment to the Buddha. To me there is value in that, in and of itself. I don't know that I have many specific ideas about what it would look like (I suppose I could ask order members who are involved in various unions and alliances, attend teachers' conferences, etc.). But certainly different traditions can learn from each other without becoming indistinguishable? And the institutions and leaders of those traditions can probably benefit from mutual support. And having a better understanding of other traditions could challenge the degree to which, in my opinion, distinctiveness and a sense of superiority have been intertwined in the Triratna tradition, perhaps more so in the past.
I think we should embrace opportunities that connect us with others and also encourage us not to think too pridefully and insularly about our own precious (in multiple senses) sangha.
So, I'm curious what you think of all that in general, regardless of the accuracy or usefulness of Wesak.
Thanks for all your thoughtfulness,
Dhivajri
Dhivajri
--------------------------
From my last post to the previous FB discussion:
Buddha Day is fine (if goofy sounding) with me, in and of itself. Have Buddha Day at our local centers, celebrate Wesak with others? I don't know. Again, my point was not that we use Wesak so we'll fit in, but as a way to connect. I don't think fitting in/conforming is the same thing as reaching out/connecting. I don't think we should overlook such opportunities."
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Courage to you, Jayarava. You certainly are deserving of your name!
Glenn
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Hi Dhīvajrī,
Thanks for asking your question here, and giving your own answer.
No doubt we can learn from others, but I worry that most of us have yet to fully appreciate what we have. Isn't this what Sangharakshita has been saying lately?
I understand that your situation may be different from the ones I'm familiar with in the UK or NZ or even online. But you started of by saying that we need to connect on "shared commitment to the Buddha" and you ended by saying that you used the name Wesak as a way to connect. If we connect on the level of the refuges, then what we call our festival is irrelevant. Isn't it?
My feeling is that we are not the only ones who risk superiority with distinctiveness - everyone does. No traditional Buddhist would abandon the distinctive trappings of their religion to suit us - no robed monk is going to dress down because we don't dress up, for instance. And what worries me more than superiority (since life is a trickster and will sort out inflation with a prick) is inferiority and blandness. Sure, let's mix and mingle, but we don't have to be chameleons or wallflowers. We are a lively bunch. What's that Goethe quote: "...boldness has genius, magic, and power in it".
Readers often accuse me of qualities like arrogance or ill-will because of what, or how, I write. These days, at least, I don't set out to write arrogantly or angrily, I set out to discover some truth. Not being very stylish, I don't think much about my writing style, to the exasperation of any editors I've interacted with. If I'm swayed by reviews I start trying to second guess what will be popular and the writing suffers. When I try to write something because I think people will like it, the readership generally drops and the comments dry up. So I try to just stick to writing about what interests me, what moves me, or what I'm curious about. This seldom takes in world events or trendy topics, but it is surprising how often it touches people. I have to be true to my muse, or she abandons me. I can't make people like me. I have to allow the world the choice to like me or not, though I certainly feel no compunction to collude with those who don't like me (I don't publish every comment I get on this blog for instance!) I'm glad that at least some people seem to 'get it'.
I assume that the Order must do something similar. If we approach others on the basis of wanting acceptance or approval then we are in trouble. Back in about 1988 I wrote a song that contained the lines:
I'm looking for approval,
In the eyes of a stranger,
It's no wonder I feel so strange.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Hi Glen,
Thanks.
The name was given in part to mark qualities I already possess, but also to remind me that the buddhajayantī is my goal. My true 'jayasya ravaḥ' has yet to be heard.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Hello- Thank-you for all your very thoughtful comments. I want to apologise for one comment I wrote above. After spending such a beautiful day with the Cardiff Sangha celebrating the life of the Buddha and his Enlightenment, I must say my comment "The radical idea is not the historical Buddha", is not right. It was wrong to say that. His life IS radical and very relevant. Thanks again, and I look forward to having a chat over tea with you.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Hi Jayarava
Hope you had an inspiring & rejuvenating Buddha/Wesak day :-)
Actually, i noticed that wesak is something of a moveable feast being on different days in different countries... which confused me, so I just stuck with the full moon. Not a bad idea to have something rooted in nature & cosmos rather than cultural relativities. Staying with the moon also takes us closer to the story of Buddha's sighting of the morning star upon awakening.
Thanks for writing & sharing. I benefit greatly.
ps. talking of occidental/oriental imagery, is that a sunflower or a lotus (not a blue nile lotus) that the mediatator is sitting on in the illustration that goes with?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
A late reply to Adam,
There's only one reason the moon is so significant in ancient calenders - it's because there were few other ways to mark the passage of time. For a group of forest dwellers wanting to meet together on a regular basis longer than every other day, the moon provided the only reference point. One can meet on the full moon and new moon which is about every two weeks, and this is what Buddhists and other ancients did.
There's no sign of this being of magical or mystical significance in the Pāli texts. It's just a way of dividing up time. And it's not a very good one because it doesn't coincide with the solar year very well - 365.25 doesn't divide evenly by 29.5 ... each year 11.25 days are unaccounted for!
When the lunar month and it's divisions became a superstition is a mystery to me, as is the fact of it retaining it's mystical significance in the modern west. I think we just like superstitions and mysticism because we are naive. We still think that ignorance is bliss, and this is of course one of the strong theme of Christian myth - Adam and Eve were blissfully ignorant and suffered having gained knowledge of good and evil. I think it represents a rather infantile longing for the innocence of childhood.
Similarly I have no idea when the story of the Buddha seeing the morning star upon awakening arose - but it's not in the early accounts. It's just an elaboration, no doubt fuelled by superstition.
The great thing about the European Enlightenment is that it began to free us from ignorant superstition. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is miserable.
I had not noticed the extent to which my stylised lotuses resemble sunflowers, but I am a great fan of them and usually grow a few in my tiny urban garden each year. They may be a more relevant symbol for me because I did try to grow lotuses indoors and they just died in the winter. The sunflower may well replace the lotus in my Buddhist imagery. Thanks for pointing this out!
Thursday, June 16, 2011