I Can't Get No Satisfaction (Dukkha)

Ever had that sinking feeling?

It’s a funny thing, but it seems to be a common misconception that rich people don’t suffer. The assumption appears to be that because they have loads of money and can buy pretty much anything they want, that they’re never dissatisfied with life. But the truth is that the rich and famous are afflicted with roughly the same forms of suffering that the rest of us are. We might think that this isn’t so, that they can buy their way out of unhappiness, but life doesn’t work out that way; it is full of dukkha. Just think of all the news stories about the rich and famous getting divorced, arrested, going into rehab or prison, or sometimes taking their own lives.

Dukkha is the central problem of human existence according to the Buddha. This word has many possible translations in English, the most common being ‘suffering’ and ‘unsatisfactory.’ Buddhism shows us that life is full of suffering, that it’s innately unsatisfactory or imperfect in nature, and that this is universal for all beings. In his first sermon, the Buddha taught about dukkha, saying that:

“Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow and despair are dukkha, association with the disliked is dukkha, separation from the liked is dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha.”

So, according to the Enlightened One, being born is dukkha, growing old is dukkha (tell me about it!), and death is dukkha. This life is unsatisfactory from beginning to end, and those moments of happiness that we squeeze out of it are occasional respites from the suffering that marks existence. That ‘grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow and despair’ are all unsatisfactory seems pretty obvious, but the Buddha went deeper in the nature of suffering than this. He stated that along with not getting what we do want, getting what we don’t want is a form of suffering, as is being separated from what or who we like.

Right now, you might be doing something that you really enjoy, like surfing the Net and visiting your favorite websites – at least I hope that’s the case! However, seeded in this moment of happiness is unhappiness, or dukkha, for when the time comes that you can’t log on to your most loved sites, you’ll suffer. Who amongst us hasn’t experienced the annoyance of a slow Internet connection, or a website being ‘down’ just when we ‘needed’ it the most. People can be just as unsatisfactory as technology, for who can say that they’re in a perfect relationship where their partner never annoys them or lets them down? And how about all those times that someone was plain nasty to you, or somebody that you really cared for was lost to you? Let’s face it: life stinks.

Seeing this fact of suffering for myself and realizing that ‘I can’t get no (lasting) satisfaction’ from any thing or person is the beginning of the Buddhist Path. Buddhism teaches that in contemplating the fact of dukkha, and through meditating on the nature of the mind, suffering can be understood and lessoned, even transcended altogether in the realization of Nirvana, or transcendent happiness. Being confused and miserable is not actually caused by the world, but by the mind’s reaction to it; we make ourselves suffer. It’s our responsibility.

The Buddhadharma also leads us to the realization that hopelessness and suffering grow out of our tendency to cling to what we want and what we think should be happening. We then get pushed around by life, because every time something occurs that we don’t like, a state of suffering arises in the mind. Observing this with dispassion and noting its development is an important step in cultivating the understanding that can begin to free us from our self-created torture. It certainly takes a lot of time and effort for most of us, but the resulting peace from such heedfulness is well worth it.

If someone’s mean to us, we usually respond by thinking, “He hurt me, she abused me. How dare they!” Using wisdom to become aware of our responses to the world, we can see how they arise and the effects that they have on our future states of mind. We can see the rebirth, moment-to-moment, of suffering within ourselves. Then, we can make the choice as to whether we wish to continue with this train of thought and feeling, or whether we want to take some control of the mind and train it in the art of happiness, which is achieved through the development of calmness and wisdom through meditation. This is the beginning of walking the Buddha Way to enlightenment, and the real satisfaction that’s independent of fame, fortune, infamy, and failure.

The above post first appeared on the blog 'Forest Wisdom,' which was reborn as this one.

The Winds of Change (Anicca)

Though at first it was gentle as it lightly brushed against the leaves of the trees and other local plant life, the wind has picked up somewhat. Whole branches now bend to its power, and the neighbor’s blanket looks like it might ascend to the heavens any moment as it’s ruffled from its lazy position draped over a gate. All around me are the signs of change, as the wind intensifies in its efforts to disrupt this sleepy neighborhood. But, it is just a forerunner of what’s to come, a prophet predicting the coming of a more potent god – the rain. Here in Thailand, a strong wind that builds up in intensity is often the precursor to a tropical deluge. It’s a sign of the changing weather and the downpour to come. As with so many aspects of nature, this process of change is observable within our selves as well as in the outside world. It is the witnessing of the fact that all phenomena are anicca (impermanent) in nature, and therefore subject to constant change. They have a flux in their very being.

‘The wind of change’ in meditation is often experienced as a sense of impatience, a flitting of attention from one object to another, without one willing it to do so. Just as the actual wind will build up in strength, tossing more objects around as it does, so too the mind increases in restlessness, moving from the focus of meditation to another mental formation, such as a memory or an internal image. The trick is to bring attention back to the original mental object, such as the breath in anapanasati (mindful breathing) meditation. This training of the mind to concentrate has several benefits, the most obvious of which is an increased ability to focus on things more intently, being able to carry out tasks with more accuracy. A second result of an attentive mind is the peace that can result from a stable mental condition, rather like a nice cool day, where there’s neither a disruptive wind nor the dampening effect of rain. Thirdly, a focused mind forms the base from which the true nature of this life can be explored, starting with the recognition of the impermanent nature of everything.

So, we’re back where we started, with the ‘winds of change’ that exist both in the world that we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell, and in the mind with which we perceive the universe. No thing lasts forever, whether it be a stormy wind, a downpour, or a lack of attention, a memory, or a bad mood. And this can be a positive thing to contemplate, for when we’re in a situation we don’t want to be in, say in the middle of a rainstorm, it’s good to know that it will eventually stop. It’s all uncertain, all subject to change.

The above post first appeared on the blog 'Forest Wisdom,' which was reborn as this one.

The Silence of Buddha Space

Ajahn Sumedho has often taught about the sound of silence, by which he means a high-pitched buzzing sound that can be heard when we quieten the mind. This sound never departs, but it appears to because awareness of it is not constant. In meditation, this sound can get pretty loud, or at least appear to do so, again dependent on the level of concentration present. Being awake to the present moment can release the mind from its usual views of the world, and of the apparent self that it mistakes itself to be, allowing it the space – the Buddha Space – to see things as they really are (the Dharma).

It is time to quieten this mind, and to do so extraneous endeavors such as writing this blog need to be curtailed, at least for the time being. So, this post will be the last one for a time, perhaps a long time; we will see. It is a joy to share the Buddhadharma, and I would like to thank all my readers who have given me the opportunity to do so, and also to thank you for sharing your understanding of the Path with me in the wonderful comments that have been left on this site. As the links feature on the right of this page attests, and indeed the links that they contain, there are many great Buddhist blogs out there, and it is to these that I refer any new wayfarers coming here.

Please feel free to continue leaving comments as I will still check in here from time to time as well as surf the Net to see how things are going in the virtual world of Modern Buddhism, something that has much to offer the suffering beings of this planet. But I can hear the silence calling, whispering in between the myriad thoughts that stir in response to this whirlwind world. And it is time to listen more intently to that silence, to focus in on it, and see where it leads to. (Ultimately, to nowhere, of course!) Once again, a big thanks to all of you. Oh, and enjoy seeing your ‘Buddha Space’ on Buddha Day/Wesak!

Be well in the Dharma,

G.

The Sangha Revisted

The third refuge is Sangha, which means a group. ‘Sangha’ may be the Bhikkhu-Sangha [the order of monks] – or the Ariya-Sangha, the group of the Noble Beings, all those who live virtuously, doing good and refraining from evil with bodily action and speech. Here, taking refuge in the Sangha with ‘Sangham saranam gacchami’ means we take refuge in virtue, in that which is good, virtuous, kind, compassionate and generous. We don’t take refuge in those things in our minds that are mean, nasty, cruel, selfish, jealous, hateful, angry – even though admittedly that is what we often tend to do out pf heedlessness, out of not reflecting, not being awake, but just reacting to conditions. Taking refuge in the Sangha means, on the conventional level, doing good and refraining from evil with bodily action and speech.

(‘Now is the Knowing’ by Ajahn Sumedho, p.15*)

Ajahn Sumedho has a wonderful way of explaining things, which often appears very simple, but leads us to reflect more deeply on what he’s talking about. When discussing the Sangha, the venerable monk describes in pretty succinct language what the word means in Theravada Buddhism. He looks at the Pali phrase used to take refuge in the Sangha, but gives it a contemplative interpretation by relating it to certain positive qualities, such as virtue, kindness, and generosity.

Unlike many a guru, Buddhist or otherwise, Ajahn Sumedho does not encourage us to take refuge in him or the ordained Sangha to which he belongs, but instead directs us to reflect on what it actually means to take refuge, and what the word ‘Sangha’ actually points to. And, apart from those ordained & liberated members of the Buddhist fraternity, what is it that this word refers to? It is all that’s positive & inspirational in the spiritual life, leading us to deepen our practice of Buddhism by developing the understanding that virtuous living is the basis for genuine progress towards enlightenment.

On one level, of course, Buddhists take refuge in the Triple Gem, which includes the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha – the Awakened One, the teaching, and the Community of Enlightened & Ordained Buddhists. These three supports can help us to avoid some of the excesses that we humans are prone to, with the Sangha providing examples of how to live a life conducive to spiritual awakening. But, closely related to this, are the very qualities that the Sangha embody for us, such as goodwill, compassion, generosity, and the like. Ajahn Sumedho suggests that taking refuge in these modes of behavior is entering into the Sangha, conducting one’s life in a way that parallels the lifestyles of the awakened ones.

Cultivating awareness of our habits, whether mental, verbal, and physical, can enable us to understand them, letting go of the more harmful modes of behavior and cultivating those assist in our awakening. Reflecting on how we talk with others, for example, can reveal our inner thoughts about them, and what we really think of ourselves, as well. Do we experience other people as completely separate from us, or are they somehow connected to us at a fundamental level of our being? How we interact with them reveals so much, for it’s easy to talk of being one with others, or living in harmony, but to actually live in such ways means that we have experienced the interdependent nature of all people & things. And, as a reader of this blog has previously suggested (see here: Sangha), we can see everyone & everything as belonging to this ‘Sangha’ that includes not only ordained & enlightened Buddhists, but all living beings in the universe.

*To download 'Now is the Knowing' by Ajahn Sumedho, please click here:
Buddhanet E-Book Library

Violent Buddhists

Some 'devilish' Buddhists on the rampage!

Like many former residents of Bangkok, I have been watching the country's slide into virtual civil war with a mixture of incredulity and tetchy disillusion. It is hard for us to think of one of the world's only truly Buddhist states descending into a chaotic thuggery that would, alas, be less remarkable elsewhere. But why? Is it because of misperceptions we have about Buddhism?

(Are Buddhists Violent? by Lawrence Osborne, Forbes, April 14, 2009)

In response to the recent political upheavals in Thailand, the author Lawrence Osborne has written an interesting article that explores the relationship between Buddhism & violence. His main focus is on Thailand, but the implications of what he writes can be applied to all Buddhists living across the globe. Osborne has some challenging things about Western Buddhists, too, which we will come to shortly.

In essence, Osborne has difficulty squaring the recent political violence in Thailand with the popular idea of peace-loving Buddhists. In addition to the above quotation, he further writes:

Buddhist violence--or violence committed by Buddhists, more properly speaking--is a strained concept for us, to put it mildly. I can easily imagine being assaulted by an infuriated Christian or by a hysterically outraged jihadist, by a Zionist even, at a pinch--but by a Buddhist? What would you have to say to get him mad? Deny transmigration?

(Ibid.)

Despite the rather amusing reference to transmigration, there’s a serious point here: Buddhism, unlike the other religions that Osborne mentions, does not cling to its doctrines as unquestionable & sacred truths that must never be contradicted. Whereas in Islam, for example, extremist Muslims might behead you for challenging their Koran-centered view of existence, and a fundamentalist Christian may well kill you for aborting an unwanted child, it is almost unheard of for Buddhists to support Buddhism with violence. This is, of course, because at the heart of Buddhism lies the teaching that violence is both unwise & uncompassionate, and therefore against the basic principles of any devout Buddhist. But, herein lays the crux of the matter: what do we define as a devout Buddhism? Indeed, are our conceptions of the words “Buddhism’ & ‘Buddhist’ too restricted or just plain wrong?

Buddhism is traditionally summed up in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, which details how Buddhists should conduct themselves to develop wisdom & Compassion, among many other qualities, which lead to enlightenment. One aspect of the Path is Correct Action, which includes being non-violent to others, whilst another part of it is Correct Speech which discourages Buddhists from uttering confrontational words. Even the mind itself is covered in the Eightfold Path’s coverage of violence, for in the guidelines on Correct Attitude, three kinds of thoughts are encouraged: thoughts free from lust, free from ill-will, and free from cruelty. Thinking of committing violence is certainly not part of Correct Attitude, either! Having written all of this, however, most Thai Buddhists seem to be ignorant on these teachings, so it’s unrealistic to expect them to follow the Eightfold Path that closely.

I confess that I rather like the idea of an ax-wielding Buddhist thug. It would prove, at least, that stereotypes are stereotypes. Ever since America switched on to Zen, that exceedingly odd variant of Buddhism propagated by the tireless and slightly loopy Japanese writer D. T. Suzuki, among others, we have thought of Buddhism as being inseparable from an exemplary nonviolence.

(Ibid.)

Being a fan of D.T. Suzuki – although admitting that not everything he wrote is to be taken on face value, like all words, in fact – I wasn’t too sure of why he calls him ‘slightly loopy’, unless the enlightened & enlightening perspective from which he wrote appears ‘loopy’ to the unenlightened mind, that is! Anyhow, Osborne’s main point in this segment is that stereotypes are often inaccurate ways to view the real world. And in this light we might ask, “Are all Buddhists peaceful anymore than all Muslims are suicide bombers, or all Americans are materialist gluttons?” The answer would be, “Of course not.”

Taking this idealized representation of Buddhism as a guide as to what every day Buddhists get up to isn’t a particularly wise course of action. For, the thing about the writings of D.T. Suzuki, and many other Buddhist authors, is that they are not written about what Buddhism has evolved into, under the corrosive influences of the world, but from an idealist viewpoint of how things can be, if we awaken ourselves to the truths of Buddhism. According to Osborne, this ideal of Buddhism is the cause of a gross misunderstanding of what Buddhism and Buddhists actually are, as opposed to what they could or should be:

Our popular idea of Buddhism is little better than Madonna's unhinged vision of the Torah, a "spirituality" gutted of context and complexity. Moreover, Buddhists in America and Europe are mostly middle class and economically comfortable. Theirs is a religion of consumerist choice, individual and private, not one of national inheritance and governance, and their form of Buddhism doesn't have to get its hands dirty by running an actual state.

(Ibid.)

Dear western readers, are you middle class and economically comfortable? (It’s interesting that whilst Osborne decries stereotypes of Asian Buddhists, he seems most content to describe their western counterparts in such judgmental terms.) Surely the context of someone’s spiritual practice is the context within which they live, east or west, rich or poor. Comparing American & European Buddhists with Madonna seems more of a cheap shot than a serious point, with all due respect to the Kabbalist singer. By associating Western Buddhists with someone regularly ridiculed in the media for her religious beliefs would appear to be an attempt to lump them together, insinuating that Westerners with an interest in Buddhism are merely playing around. Are you playing around with the Buddhadharma, dear reader?!

That many of us in the West are converts to Buddhism is widely known; that we are spiritual consumerists that have shopped around for the religion that suits us best, or makes the best sense to us, isn’t such a bad thing, is it? It’s certainly an improvement on forced conversations and blind acceptance of one’s ancestors’ faith. Regarding Osborne’s remark that occidental Buddhists don’t have to run countries like thir oriental counterparts, there’s a simple reason for that. It is because Buddhists are a tiny minority of the populations of western states that they do not run governments and other traditional national institutions. Given the call to governance, some would probably be only be too glad to try to introduce some compassion & wisdom into their governments. Perhaps one day…

Pursuing as we do happiness, that improbable Moby Dick of an idea, we think Buddhism can make us happier by controlling our egos and our anger. Maybe it can. But did Buddhism ever think of the world as "happy" as we'd like it to be? Does it think of us as individuals, as we'd like ourselves to be? Does it comprehend political identity as we understand it, or as even Thais understand it now?

(Ibid.)

Here, Osborne asks some philosophically interesting questions regarding the core teachings of Buddhism. The assumption appears to be that the popular western ideas of happiness are the same as that of Western Buddhists. Osborne is suggesting that the ego-centered happiness of the masses is the same as the kinds of happiness aimed for by Western Buddhists. He believes that we are not in search of Nirvana (enlightenment), as traditionally taught in Buddhism, but are seeking a hedonistic vision of bliss that satisfies the personality rather than transcending it. Is this so?

Returning to events in the Land of Smiles, Osborne refers directly to the political unrest involving the yellow-shirted and red-shirted protesters in Thailand. What is noticeable is that while there have been violent acts at some of these protests over the last few years the vast majority of people taking part have been peaceful. Focusing on a small number of incidents and trying to suggest that Thailand is on the verge of a bloodbath, if not out and out civil war, is stretching credibility, to be honest. Not that Thais are incapable of violence: they are human beings with the frailties that we all posses. But, it does seem to someone living in the midst of the present political turmoil that things are a hell of a lot worse in many, many other countries across the globe.

Last November, I was caught at Suvarnaphumi airport as an army of "Yellows" swarmed through the terminals screaming "Martyrdom!" and brought the place to a standstill. Masked, carrying sticks and piping, the merry Yellows were not a very Buddhist-looking lot, at least according to our sentimental conventions,

Now, it's the turn of the "Reds," who have stormed Bangkok and caused the Asian summit in Pattaya to be aborted. They are also devout Buddhists, but they are not in an especially nonviolent mood. A protester has finally been shot dead. Thaksin has cryptically commented that the death toll is far higher, though nobody seems to know. That it will rise, and that the violence will come to the streets, seems tragically likely.

(Ibid.)

When excited, and Thai people can get very excited on occasion, people’s enthusiasm may well get the better of them. People shouting “Martyrdom!” has to be seen in context. No one at these rallies in Thailand strapped on a bomb and blew themselves and their opposite numbers to smithereens. Quite the contrary; most of the protests were broadcast hour by hour on Thai television, showing happy, smiling people waving flags and peacefully listening to speeches. Sometimes things got more heated, but then that’s only natural when people are passionately protesting against those they believe to be ruining their country.

Since writing the above, Sondhi Limthongkul, a prominent yellow-shirts leader has been shot, along with his driver, in an apparent assassination attempt. This shows that the situation is volatile and the likelihood of further isolated incidents of violence are probably on the cards. Following on from the suppression of the red-shirted protests, one of the movement’s leaders, who is in hiding, has promised continuing resistance to what he sees as an illegal government, with the threat of possibly violent acts. At the time of writing, the situation seems to be calm, but as we all know, things change. There are more twists and turns down the road to political stability for the Kingdom of Thailand.

As Osborne mentions below, there has been a much more violent and deadly conflict going on for several years down in the south of the country. Not all of the deaths caused by this conflict have been at the hands of Muslim insurgents, either. The Thai Army has been accused on numerous occasions of unnecessary killings, torture, and the general harassment of the local Muslim population. No doubt, again in the heat of a volatile & dangerous situation, the Thai military has acted in ways that cannot be justified by Buddhist standards of behavior. But, is this the result of most of the military personnel being Buddhist? Osborne observes that:

The Islamic insurgency in Thailand's southern provinces, which are predominantly Muslim, presents us with a grim and in some ways ironic spectacle: Virulent Islamic insurgents inordinately fond of decapitating monks facing down a Buddhist army that has itself committed atrocities.

This war has dragged on semi-secretly for years, with many thousand deaths, cities living under curfew and fear regnant. What effect, I wonder, has it had upon the rest of the society? And we can hardly forget the dozens of coups that the country has suffered over the last hundred years, which have not been extraordinarily bloody by world standards but which have not been peaceful either. Is this Buddhist politics too?

(Ibid.)

Are army-led coups ‘Buddhist’? Well, if not out of compassion for the people, no. Buddhist teachings are clear that leaders as well as ordinary citizens are expected to behave compassionately towards all beings. The example of the ancient Indian king monarch King Ashoka is cited as an example of how to rule with both compassion & wisdom. Many army coups and other controversial military conflicts have occurred in the history of Thailand (and other so-called Buddhist nations such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Vietnam). This is in spite of what Buddhism has to teach on the matter, however.

Nevertheless, the last army coup, it must be remembered, involved no loss of life. How many army coups can boast of such a peaceful path to power? Perhaps we should be open-minded enough to recognize that democracy is not necessarily always the answer to every country’s problems. Focusing on the issue of Thai Army’s violence, whether committed against Muslims, Buddhists, or others, however, it is important to remember that when soldiers are ordered to open fire, it’s not after consulting the teachings of the Buddha on such matters. In fact, it is direct contradiction of them. Osborne broadens his appraisal of Thailand and its Buddhist heritage in the following paragraph:

The country has a high homicide rate for crimes of passion but is paradoxically one of the safest in the world for street crime. Its national sport, muay thai, or "Thai boxing," is exquisitely brutal, and I might add very much to my taste, but where else are manners more considerate and intelligently designed to abate violent personal conflict? Where are strangers treated better, and where is tolerance of a certain kind more pragmatically enjoined? It can hardly be far-fetched to think of these as in some way Buddhist virtues. Outside of politics, the Thai vibe is summed up by a single common word: Sanuk, the principle of enjoying life.

(Ibid.)

Crimes of passion & Thai boxing are widespread in Thailand, as are the peaceful manners cultivated in traditional Thai society. This seems only natural, however. It is inconceivable to imagine that the Thai psyche has not been influenced by centuries of Buddhist practice, but Thais remain humans, with all the shortcomings that are common to Homo sapiens throughout our recorded history. Therefore, whilst politeness & friendliness may well be the result of Buddhist influence, there are bound to be aspects to Thai psychology & culture that are apparently un-Buddhist in their characteristics.

In comparison to Thailand, for example, can we say that every aspect of American culture derives from the Christian faith of that nation, or that every kind of behavior found amongst Iranians is the direct result of their Islamic history? Societies are surely a complex mixture of different and competing influences, constantly in a flux that creates and recreates the common psychologies of their peoples. Therefore, while a people may conform to the ideals of their main traditional religion in some of its teachings, they may well fall short with regards of other principles.

What, then, to make of this new spiral downward into chaos and confrontation? Of course, to expect ordinary people who happen to be Buddhists to be moral supermen is absurd. All peoples are violent, and they are torn by the injustices inherent in human life.

(Ibid.)

Much to his credit, I think Osborne finds the answer at the end of his article. Here he acknowledges that Thais are people, and ordinary people at that; most Thais are by no means enlightened beings. Neither are many Thais, by the way, devout Buddhists. They may well be Buddhist by birth, and follow Buddhism as part of their (very strong) national identity as Thais. This means that they are neither enlightened beings nor particularly up to scratch on Buddhist teachings and practices. This is true of many peoples around the world, of course. It seems reasonable to remark that just as most British people couldn’t describe Jesus’ life & teachings in much detail, so most Thais couldn’t do the same for the Buddha. (The author has much personal experience in Britain & Thailand that backs this assertion up.)

And here lies the answer to Osborne’s questions regarding Buddhist violence. We do seem to have both misconceptions about what a country with a Buddhist history would be like, and we overestimate the level to which most people take their involvement with Buddhism. Furthermore, to get a Buddhist mad one simply has to do something that offends that particular individual so much that they break their usual friendly façade. There are as many different kinds of Buddhists as they are Buddhists; each one is different and has their own breaking point. Even enlightened Buddhists, who presumably have no breaking point as such, are not clones. They have different cultures, histories, trainings, etc, and will express the Buddhist teachings very differently from reach other.

It’s not that Buddhists are violent because they are Buddhists; it’s despite the fact that they are Buddhist, or at least despite the fact they’re born into predominately Buddhist societies. Being aware of, and thereafter following, the Noble Eightfold Path leads to the letting go of violent thoughts, words, and deeds, but how many Buddhists actually adhere to this Way? Moreover, Buddhists, along with the rest of humanity, are battling to overcome (or let go of) the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion. In this, we are all in the same boat, and recognizing this fact, and sharing our ideas of how to overcome the challenges that we face as individuals and societies can only help us to cease from creating more suffering.

To read the original article by Lawrence Osborne, please click the following link:
Are Buddhists Violent?

The Sangha

The early enlightened Sangha

The Sangha, traditionally speaking, has two connotations; firstly, it refers to the two orders of monks and nuns, originally founded at the onset of Buddhist history, and, secondly, it makes reference to those men & women that have achieved awakening or enlightenment. It is this latter group that are included in the Triple Gem of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, which every Buddhist takes refuge in as a source of inspiration upon the Path. In more modern times, the term Sangha has been extended to include non-celibate priests, as are found in Japanese Buddhism, and even to the whole Buddhist community at large, including lay people, as often happens in the Western Buddhism. In more traditionally-minded Buddhist societies, this latter meaning of Sangha is unrecognized, and only an ordained priest, monk, or nun is recognized as a member of the Order.

For the author, having taken refuge in the Forest Buddhism of Ajahns Chah & Sumedho, and living in conservative Thailand, using the word Sangha to include myself and other lay Buddhists seems inappropriate and potentially misleading. Describing myself as a member of a Buddhist Sangha feels akin to claiming to be enlightened or to being a monk (imitating a monk is a criminal offence in Thailand). But is it all that important in reality? Perhaps this is another example of clinging to the form and not the essence of the spiritual life that is being pointed to.

A Zen priest ready to whack the Sangha!

In truth, Sangha is another word and concept. We can use it effectively to encapsulate some abstract idea, or we can attach to the meaning we give to it, creating suffering around it. Even reflecting on the usage of Sangha to indicate the community of enlightened ones can lead to the realization that the mind is creating duality between enlightened and not enlightened, Sangha member and non-member. Sometimes, perhaps always, it can be useful to get back to basics so as to see things with a little more clarity. So, let’s get simple!

Traditional relationship between Sangha & the laity

Sit comfortably with eyes shut, perhaps in your meditation position, and, after settling down through an exercise such as watching the breath, mentally say the word ‘Sangha.’ Listen to its sounds: s-a-ng-gh-a. What reaction occurs in the mind to these sounds? Repeat the word slowly several times, and notice the space that precedes and follows each word. How does experiencing the word in this silent context affect the mind’s response to it? Now say the word internally and focus on the various connotations that arise in relation to it. What images come to mind; monks, nuns, robes, bowls, meditators, a chanting congregation, a gentle smile? Break the word into two syllables, and silently recite ‘sang’ on the in-breath, then internally say ‘gha’ on the out-breath. As the air gently sweeps into your body and then out again, see how any controversy or confusion associated with the word itself disperses into the softness of your breathing. How do you feel about the word ‘Sangha’ now?

Nuns form part of the traditional Sangha

What of yourself, dear reader? Are you a member of a Sangha, or the supporter of one? Does it concern you that if you use the term Sangha to mean one thing, and Asian Buddhists use it to mean something quite different, misunderstandings can arise, and the suspicion that Westerners are yet again taking another cultural tradition and bastardizing it to suit themselves? Is the distinction between renunciate and lay person an important one in the Buddhism that you practice, or do you think that such categories are no longer relevant to modern Buddhism?

Is any collection of Buddhists a Sangha these days?

You're An Idiot Buddhist!

Someone calls you an idiot. Then you start thinking, “How can they call me an idiot? They’ve got no right to call me an idiot! How rude to call me an idiot! I’ll get them back for calling me an idiot.” And you suddenly realize that you have just let them call you an idiot another four times.

Every time you remember what they said, you allow them to call you an idiot yet again. Therein lies the problem.

If someone calls you an idiot and you immediately let it go, then it doesn’t bother you. There is the solution.

Why allow other people to control your inner happiness?

(Ajahn Brahm, ‘Who Ordered This Truckload of Dung?’ p.226)

Ajahn Brahmavamso – ‘Brahm’ for short – has a lovely down-to-earth way of presenting the Dharma. The above is typical of his method of teaching, with a simple, direct story, organized into a neat framework. (Note how, as an ex-scientist, he first illustrates the problem, clinging to an insult, and then shows us the solution, letting go of it. And what’s the result of this simple formula? We retain our inner happiness.)

How to put the above into practice may not be quite so simple, however. If insulted, the natural human response is not to say, “Oh well, never mind,” and immediately forget all about it. That’s not the way most minds work, anyway. Elsewhere in his books and collected talks, Ajahn Brahm discusses various ways that we can counter this normal reaction to other’s criticisms of us. Indeed, Buddhism at large is full of techniques to assist in the letting go of such negative feelings. Let’s explore some here.

Okay, so your neighbor has called you an idiot, or a work colleague said that you’re really useless – what are you going to do? Slug them? Gush out a torrent of abuse? Nah – you’re Buddhist for heathen’s sake! So, what’s your first option, from the Buddhist perspective? You could try some metta-bhavana (goodwill meditation), generating positive, warm feelings towards them. Here’s a brief description of how to cultivate a bit of ‘loving-kindness’ as it’s called:

This can be done sitting in meditation position, or just in a comfy chair. Picture a cuddly, helpless puppy or kitten, or some similar creature that evokes sympathy in you. Really focus your attention on the little being, maybe it’s hungry or in pain, perhaps it’s missing its mother, with tears rolling down its cute face. Aaahhh! When feelings of goodwill have built up towards your small companion, turn your attention to those emotions themselves. Really dive into that metta/goodwill. Swim in it, and feel it fill your mind. Next, pick someone that you respect, perhaps a spiritual teacher such as…Ajahn Brahm! Generate goodwill towards this person, really wishing them all the best. Spend a few minutes doing this. Now, think of a friend, sending loving-kindness in their direction, taking the time to really feel positive emotions for them. Following on from this, do the same with someone you know a bit, like the guy who drives the bus, or the women that lives opposite. Wish them only good things, sending positive feelings to them, just as you did previously. Next, pick the person that called you something horrible. Picture their face, their humanity. Think of them as a vulnerable and imperfect being, just like that helpless little dog or cat, like Ajahn Brahm, the good friend, and the vague acquaintance. This person that insulted you is a suffering being just like any other. Maybe their bad attitude is due to their own particular problems and is something that they really can’t help right now. Whatever the reason for their rudeness, they’re deserving of your goodwill, and your sympathy. Give them some now, as you reflect on them.

Now, did that hurt? It certainly won’t have hurt the person that insulted you, and it won’t have done you any harm in the long run, either. Perhaps next time you meet them, this feeling of metta will rise in you again, and, if it’s strong enough, lighting up your face, that person might just pay you a compliment rather than call you an idiot!

The above cultivation of goodwill is really a long term answer to dealing with negative reactions to other people’s faults and insults. If you haven’t had the time for it, or someone else calls you dumb, you’re stuck! (Not unless you’ve become so good at meta-production that you can generate such emotions on demand, or are in a constant state of metta-production.) So, with that in mind, here’s an alternative strategy to dealing with a potential hate figure:

Really observe them. Notice the little things about them: the shape of their fingers, the color of their skin, their hair, and their eyes. See the wrinkles – or lack of – lining their face, the shape of their torso. What are their shoes like, and do their clothes fit nicely, or are they too loose or tight? Listen to that voice as it insinuates you’re the lowest of the low: is it a deep, resonate sound, or is it lighter in tone, perhaps even wavering in a kind of vulnerable way? Using acute observation skills this way – a form of mindfulness – can take your focus away from what they’re saying to who they are, what they’re like. It can also lead to becoming more aware of the person’s humanity, and their imperfect state that produces such impolite words. Awareness is a liberating force; it’s the heart of the Buddha Way. Becoming aware of the whole person in front of you can move your focus away from the bad things they’re doing or saying, and perhaps lead you to see the troubled being that produces negative speech.

Another technique that helps not clinging to the nasty things people sometimes throw at you is more radical than the previous two examples. Put simply, it is to see that the other person is you, that there’s nothing separating the two of you, and that whatever insults they’re coming up with are directed as much at themselves as they are you. This might seem somewhat odd at first, but give it a try: its results can be startling effective:

Looking at the person opposite you, really look – are they opposite you, or do they (and ‘you’ as an ego) exist in the awareness that’s at the center of your being? This awareness is impersonal, it’s neither belongs to you nor to anyone else, and it’s the same awareness in us all. The details that occur in it can differ immensely, but if they are seen in the context of this knowing, they are revealed to be interconnected processes arising in this spacious awareness. Your thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations all exist as an expression of this naked heart, as does everything and everyone else that you are aware of. Even the harsh words that can occur in this emptiness-full-of-the-world are seen as the way things are right now, neither good or bad in themselves, just phenomena arising and falling away in the knowing. Despite the detachment that can come out of this kind of observation, there’s a touching connectedness to everything experienced. So, although you may discover a certain detached attitude to your egotistical self and all that happens to it, a sense of the underlying unity of all separate things is also known. You are liberated from the self-identity that causes the clinging to insults that come may your way.

Lastly, you might want to try this one. It involves something called compassion:

The person with you has just told you that you’re an idiot. Rather than responding to these unfriendly words, reflect on the suffering state of the person before you. And, be assured that they are suffering. For, unless they’re enlightened, that is, they’ve let go of the causes of suffering, they do experience an underlying unsatisfactory quality to existence, even if they’re not conscious of the fact. And the offending words that spew forth from their lips are the direct result of their suffering state. They are subject to the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal conditions of the universe that we all are. Identifying with the person that they think themselves to be, they react against the world in the only way that they know how, which at the present time takes the shape of distasteful diction. They are truly a pitiable being, and feeling compassion for them will result in immediate forgiveness for anything done that wasn’t nice. The compassionate one simply wants to help others escape their self-made, self-perpetuating prisons. Seeing them in this light, it’s hard to hang on to the stuff that they said to you, since you are more concerned with their well being than what they say.

There you have it: four ways to counter that natural, but ultimately unwise and uncompassionate, response to being called an idiot that results in suffering. They all involve a certain level of mindfulness, meditation, and time. Cultivate them at home, when the going’s good, and then, when next someone implies that you’re the dumbest of the dumb, you can respond with wisdom, goodwill, and compassion. What a wonderful way to put Ajahn Brahm’s advice into practice.