Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Rob Hattam presents a detailed philosophical case for socially engaged Buddhism, arguing against the view that Buddhist practice is world-denying and mystical quietism. Drawing on his PhD thesis research and Buddhist scripture, Hattam traces the lineage of engaged Buddhism from Śākyamūni Buddha’s establishment of the Sangha through contemporary teachers like the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. He focuses particularly on Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland, a practical text addressed to a king, which demonstrates how bodhisattva practitioners can integrate spiritual development with active worldly responsibility. Hattam argues that the three poisons—greed, anger, and delusion—are now institutionalised in society itself, making simultaneous inner and outer transformation essential. The talk includes substantial Q&A exploring tensions between individual practice and social activism, the historical contexts of Buddhist monasticism, and how Dharma teaching can be adapted to address Western audiences and concerns. Pitched at serious practitioners interested in bridging contemplative and activist orientations.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2008 08 22 CiA.mp3
UUID: 2b417a6c-9297-42b8-9052-3c1eddf9c041
Teacher: Rob Hattam
Collection: Compassion in Action (Rob Hattam)
Date: 2008-08-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Words: ~12,338
I think in this place anyway there’s a prayer that’s normally said to begin these sort of sessions off so it’s on page five the refuge prayer. Think it’s traditional to say the prayer three times. I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By my practice of listening to the teachings and other perfections, may I become a Buddha to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme By my of listening to the teachings and other perfections, may I become a Buddha to benefit all sentient beings.
I go for refuge until I am enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Assembly. By my practice of listening to the teachings and other perfections, may I become a Buddha to benefit all sentient beings. Yeah. So last week I, just for your benefit, I sort of introduced the set of talks tried to explain the ruse of calling it Buddhism in Terrorist Times. I’m not going to go over that completely but again just for the benefit of anyone new here the set of talks comes out of my PhD thesis and in that thesis I was engaging in a conversation between a particular type of Western philosophy and Buddhism around the question of how can I live an ethical and political life in an unjust world?
That was the basic question. And in some ways the question was an attempt to try and think about what does Buddhism mean for the times. And around the time that I was doing my thesis the World Trade Center was demolished by those planes and then where western countries are having to confront terrorism so we’ve had the war on terrorism. The present times are terrorist times. And the provocation of terrorism of course has been taken up by just about everybody that I’m sort of interested in who writes about the world.
So all of my western philosophers have written things about it but so the Buddhist philosophers that I’m interested in and I read some of those out last week. All of them were basically saying, just reiterating the basic point I think that one needs to protect one’s mind. And that the times are very provocative that anger arises. All of them were saying that they were dealing with their own anger. The Dalai Lama, Lama Zopa and so on.
So, I’m not going be talking about terrorism at all after that. It was just a code for the times. I sort of outlined the basic idea of my thesis and got to a point where near the end I was just sort of summarising how the rest of it was going to go. Perhaps just one more sort of paragraph. Of the things I was trying to do in my thesis was to speak back to a particular version of Buddhism that’s out there I think which considers Buddhism to be of otherworldly, about running away from the world.
A mystical quietism, that sort of view of it. What I was trying to argue for in my thesis was a socially engaged version of Buddhism. So on the basis of making that argument where does one go for conceptual resources for that particular view and so the next series of talks will be picking up on that. Tonight I wanted to engage in a you can go to Buddhist scripture for arguments about a socially engaged Buddhism. There’s the Dalai Lama.
There’s Thich Nhat Hanh. There’s Sulak Sivraksa, who’s a Thai Buddhist. There’s various Western interpreters, so I’m going to deal with all of those in subsequent talks and then the final talk on the last Friday in September will just be trying to bring whole argument to some sort of conclusion, which of course there is no conclusion. It’s trying to, you know, work out what that might mean for us. So I’m going to read some things and just talk off the cuff as well.
In this particular part of my thesis anyway, was trying to bring together various resources for thinking about a socially engaged Buddhism. I was even making an argument that it’s possible to discern socially engaged Buddhism as an emerging new social movement. Not that active perhaps in some parts of the world, but you can sort of see a socially engaged Buddhist position being put quite sort of forcefully in various parts of the world. And if you sort of connect up the dots, was it was sort of looking incredibly interesting as a as a, you know, a new Buddhist to I don’t know. I’m probably claiming Buddhist the last How long have I been?
About fifteen years have we known each other? Something like that. Yeah. So yeah, I’m still young in this whole thing. But anyway, it appeared to me as though contemporary Western Buddhists especially are looking for models of spirituality that not only plumb the knowledge of the ancient tradition but also in ways that go beyond the solitary meditator.
And this is, I guess, the basic proposition. A quote from Kraft, whose recent works about socially engaged Buddhism. Engaged Buddhism is an international movement whose participants seek to apply the Buddhist ideals of wisdom and compassion to present day social, political and environmental issues. Although Buddhism has typically given priority to the spiritual liberation of the individual, engaged Buddhists look for ways to expand the notion of spiritual liberation to other areas without abandoning the essential role individual enlightenment. So, yeah, on that basis where does one go for conceptual resources, inspiration and advice about what it means to be socially engaged and Buddhist.
So I’ve outlined how I want to proceed with over the next few weeks. But perhaps just to have a look, we’ll just go back and have a look at some basic definitions of what it means to be socially engaged and Buddhist. There isn’t one definition but for the benefit of making the argument I wanted to make, craft provides a reasonable definition I think. Again according to him engaged Buddhism entails both inner and outer work. We must change the world, we must change ourselves, and we must change ourselves in order to change the world.
Awareness and compassionate action reinforce each other. That seems to me to be a sort of a reasonable definition. So you’re trying to hold together in some sort of tension, changing the world and changing self. There’s not you’re not over privileging either. But perhaps I think last week, I think I was arguing that one starts with self.
I’m not quite sure that perhaps we can argue about that later. I think I’m going to propose I think I’m going to disagree with that in about ten minutes time, that perhaps one can start by changing the world and might you not necessarily have to conceive of changing self. Perhaps the inner transformation happens on the basis of one’s changing the outer. I think I’ve seen plenty of examples of that. What do they call that?
karma yoga. In another tradition, doing work for others becomes the basis for inner transformation. Transformation. It’s not a matter of just sitting on the cushion. Socially engaged Buddhism might be understood in terms of a practical spirituality, in which spiritual development and dedication to the pursuit of a more humane world necessarily go hand in hand.
So the socially engaged Buddhist rejects the idea that Buddhism is world rejecting, world dinying, passive or socially inept. To quote from Stephen Batchelor, the term engaged Buddhism entered the discourse in the 1930s during the monks war against the French occupation of Vietnam. So the idea to Bachelor anyway, starts around that time. But then the idea of socially engaged Buddhism, I think, predates the use of the term. So the term socially engaged starts to enter the conversation in the 1930s but I think I’m arguing tonight that socially engaged Buddhism as an idea starts with Buddha so you know it’s two and half thousand years old.
It’s only gets starts to get talked about in the, you know, the the twentieth century. Just by way of some sort of examples here of being socially engaged in Śākyamūni’s life. Some people argue that being socially engaged in Buddha Śākyamūni begins with Śākyamūni Buddha’s life and is best characterised by his work in developing community of practitioners referred to as the Sangha. So the Sangha itself, the idea of the Sangha invokes a socially engaged perspective. So his decision to rise from the Bodhi tree and go out and teach the Dharma might be considered to be the first step for a socially engaged Buddhism.
His discourse has had a revolutionary effect on the society of his time and his teaching dealt with this worldly topic such as politics, good government, poverty, war and peace. The Buddhist Sangha provides a model of a community and community development based on a lifestyle that’s minimalist, non acquisitive and non competitive. Rahula adds further scriptural weight to this argument in his essay on the social teachings of the Buddha. He argues that the Buddha was not disinterested in the social and economic welfare of people. Buddhism did not consider material welfare as an end in itself.
It is only a means an end. But Dharma practice does require certain minimal conditions for success. So the Buddha’s teachings on social, economic and political life are not well known but are scattered throughout ancient Buddhist texts. Rahula draws our attention to some examples. I’m not going to be able to pronounce the name of this because it’s just too long.
The Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta clearly states: ‘Poverty is the cause of immorality and crimes such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, etc.’ The Katadanta Sutta provides other examples, including the futility of suppressing such crimes through punishment. Instead the economic condition of the people should be improved and adequate wages should be paid to those who are employed. Sounds like an idea that’s been around for a while. The argument for a contemporary socially engaged Buddhism been neatly summarised by Ken Jones as well. Is another version.
Drawing on the Buddha’s diagnosis of the human condition: the root cause of our suffering is our own divisive and delusive self-need. Under post modern conditions or under contemporary conditions we now live in sociohistorical conditions which institutionalise alienation, ill will, aggressiveness, defensiveness and acquisitiveness. In turn, these social conditions are karmically inherited by each new generation whose delusive personal struggle for identity is socialised and supercharged by previously mentioned norms and institutions. This is a quote from Kraft. Analysis.
Greed, anger and delusion, known as the three poisonous minds in Buddhism, need to be uprooted in personal lives but they have to be dealt with as social and political realities. Throughout the world today, large scale systems cause suffering as surely as psychological factors cause suffering. Traditional Buddhism focused on the latter. Socially engaged Buddhism focuses on both. I think the basic argument here is that the times we live in have institutionalized the three poisonous minds.
So the greed, anger delusion are now institutionalized outside of us and coming back at us. So it’s both internal and external. So it’s not just an internal issue we’ve got, it’s actually both ways. So pursuing enlightenment involves a dual project. We need to confront our own divisive and delusive self need as well as create different social conditions of a kind which nurture positive personality change.
Our own delusion and its institutionalisation are now so interpermeated that these two, contemplation and activism, need to go hand in hand. But without some form of meditative practice that enables us to begin to heal our own alienation or delusion, we develop the necessary insight and our efforts to affect social change will only be undermined. Again, I’m trying to struggle with where does one start, inside or outside. At this point, I just want to invoke the Dalai Lama. Attempting to define a socially engaged version of Buddhism suggests that there is an unengaged version that contradict some of the basic principles of Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama put it this way: ‘I feel that the essence of spiritual practice is your attitude towards others. When you have a pure, sincere motivation, then you have right attitude towards others based on kindness, compassion, love and respect. Practice brings the clear realization of the oneness of all human beings and the importance of others benefiting by your actions. So the Dalai Lama is clearly arguing that a world rejecting or world denying Buddhism would be contradictory to the Dharma. Such a view would certainly be an anathema to the bodhisattva sensibility.
There’s some other material from Thich Nhat Hanh. I think last time as well when we were trying to tease out how we might think about socially engaged Buddhism meant. I think we were talking about working for Buddha House being an example of being socially engaged. Here’s Jones again on, he’s describing three different types of practice that could be seen as being socially engaged. It could involve alternative societal models for example monastic or quasi monastic communities.
I think there is in a community building activity. That is Buddha house or whatever. That would be an example. Social helping, service and welfare both in employ and voluntary. I’m not quite sure how Buddhism goes in the west on that one.
If you have a look at who’s providing social help, service and welfare. The government certainly does but it appears as though the Christian churches are the ones that have really stepped up to the mark. Who is feeding the poor and so on and so on and so on. Buddhism is probably not evident. You think about Middle Eastern countries and the so called sort of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and so on and when you read about them you find out that they’re engaging in a lot of help for people’s you know lives.
It’s how they that’s how they do their work. I don’t know about you know the Dalai Lama in his own diaspora in India does a lot work in that area, doesn’t he? Providing service and welfare to the diaspora. And the third type which is probably the one that interests me the most is what Jones refers to as radical activism, is directed to the fundamental institutional and social changes. So let’s just want to just again refer to the main focus for this evening’s conversation was a scriptural justification for engaged Buddhism.
There’s a number of scriptural justifications traced to Śākyamūni Buddha. An example of one has been the recently recovered edicts of Ashoka. Ashoka was the king of India around the third century. Another is provided by Martin’s reference to the Jātaka tales which recount the former lives of the historical Buddha. Quote from him: The Jatakas, in short, dramatically express the actions in the world of one liberated from all self concern.
They demonstrate the natural workings of the bodhisattva mind and heart, and by so doing turn all existence into a vast field of spiritual effort in which no life form, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is outside of the path. The Jātaka tales affirm a view of Dharma practice in which compassion is cultivated and expressed through action. Compassion must take form if it is to be real. Quote unquote. I don’t know how you go but I think my sort of pathetic attempts at practicing compassion, you’re doing sort of on the on the cushion mostly trying to, you know, what what is it?
A a rough a rough when you’re just trying to invoke it as best you can. But compassion and action, that’s in this case, I think, what’s being imagined for the bodhisattva, that’s something else. Anyway, the text that I I most studied when I was when I was having a go at trying to deal with with the scriptural justifications for this view was Nāgārjuna’s precious. Garland. Found it in the library actually.
I think I mentioned it last week. I think the first time I came to Buda House to hear Kensur Rinpoche speak, he was giving a commentary on the precious garland. I don’t know whether people have studied this one or not or whether people are familiar with Nāgārjuna. Have heard of Nāgārjuna? Did why why can you remember Rinpoche picked this one?
Because it’s sort of an unusual text really in the when you have a look at what what text that could be taught. I mean, it’s got the whole Dharma in it, hasn’t it, really? It it it is subtitled the precious garland of advice for the king. So it’s addressed for a lay person. Yeah.
So it’s addressed for a for a king. And so how does one practice Dharma if you’re the king? Which seems to me to be, you know, that’s could gonna be a good place for, you know, my thesis, as it turned out. So, what’s turned out to be the case since the since the, you know, the commentary that Jampa and Rinpoche were giving, there’s been a couple couple of key Buddhist no. Where is it?
It’s in here somewhere. I think Robert Thurman and someone else have had a go at giving a commentary on this. I’ll find it in a minute. Anyway, the must be over the page. Oh, here we go.
Yeah. The the precious Garland takes on special significance in the in because it provides an exposition of a socially engaged view of the bodhisattva path and it’s considered as a significant text in the Tibetan Buddhist community. Two important translators of Tibetan Buddhism into English, Jeffrey Hopkins and Robert Thurman have written their own commentaries on the text and again those of us interested in translations of Tibetan Buddhism into English, you know, come across Hopkins and Thurman. Were both were they both ordained by the Dalai Lama? Robert Thurman was.
Don’t think Jeffrey Hopkins was, but he was the translator, wasn’t he, from the Dalai Lama? So in the debate about the nature of socially engaged Buddhist form of Buddhism, the meaning of the Bodhisattva vow is central, especially for those who practice the Mahāyāna tradition. And I think the, you know, the precious Garland text is a meditation on taking up the Bodhisattva path but addressed to the king. So how does one continue to be the king and take up the Bodhisattva path seems to be the problem that’s being sort of struggled over in the sort of text. I don’t know how other students sort of read it but I think within the the Gelug tradition anyway, there seems to me to be sort of a strong impetus to argue for living a monastic life, taking robes.
I don’t know. That was never on my agenda and sort of resist that as the path. I’ve personally been looking for sort of, you know, imaginaries of the Buddhist that’s not monastic and, you know, living in the world and on that basis, the precious garland is, you know, incredibly sort of interesting. So the precious garland, I don’t know. Are people familiar with the sort of texts that were written in this time?
I they’re they’re they’re poems. This one’s got five chapters of a hundred stanzas each, so it’s about five hundred stanzas. Where’s some of my favorite bits? There is all sorts of advices on being ethical. I still sort of like this one.
There is a stanza on intoxicants. Intoxicants lead to worldly score and affairs are ruined, wealth is wasted. The unsuitable is done from delusion, therefore never take intoxicants. So there’s one stanza on that. Having had my own trouble with intoxicants, that one’s sort of interesting.
There’s one stanza on gambling. So obviously this is an issue even in it’s not just a contemporary issue. Gambling causes avarice, unpleasantness, hatred, deception, cheating, wildness, lying, senseless and harsh speech, therefore never gamble. And then there’s one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen. I think there’s twenty stanzas on lust, which I thought was sort of novel.
There’s one on for intoxicants, one on gambling, but lust is obviously a really, really significant, you know, problem. That sort of confirms my own experience. Yeah. So the the it’s like the first the first chapters almost the whole dharma is in there. Sort of finishes with, you know, fantastic, you know, stanza number one hundred: Feelings, discriminations, factors of composition and consciousness are to be considered like the elements of the self thereby the six constituents are selfless.
So there’s, you know, the teachings about just about everything in here. Chapter though that gets really interesting from my thesis anyway was Chapter four is called Royal Policy. So the previous chapters are sort of conventional Dharma presentations but the there’s you know the second last chapter has advice for Royal Policy. In good health, create now centres of doctrine with all your wealth, for you are living amidst the causes of death like a lamp standing in a breeze. Provide all types of support for practitioners who do not seek it and even for those living in the realms of other kings.
Appoint ministers this is a good one: ‘Appoint ministers who know good policy, who practice the doctrine, are affectionate, pure, friendly, undaunted, of good lineage, of excellent disposition and grateful.’ Appoint generals who are generous without attachments, brave, affectionate, who use the King’s wealth properly, are steadfast, always attentive and practise the doctrine. Appoint as administrators men who are old, religious disposition, pure and able, who know what should be done, are well read, unbiased, affectionate and understand good policy. And on and on he goes, as long as the prisoners are not freed, they should be made comfortable with barbers, baths, food, drink, medicine and clothing. There’s advice about leaving water on the side of the road for travellers and you know just about everything sort of catered for. Anyway, here was my my what I got out of this for my thesis just to read again some parts.
The Precious Garland takes the form of a five hundred stanza poem. The poem’s divided into five chapters of equal length. The first two chapters distinguish between what Nāgārjuna refers to as high status and definite goodness. High status is thought of as happiness, goodness is liberation. In these chapters Nāgārjuna outlines the causes of suffering, desire, hatred, ignorance and the actions that they generate are non virtues and from non virtues come all sufferings.
Trapped in a cycle of afflictive emotions and karma can only mean an endless stream of suffering and this wheel of cyclic existence depends upon the conception of the ‘I’ which is false in fact. He asserts a middle way dependent arising as an alternative to nihilism and inherent existence. In a few places he warns the reader that his advice is subtle and frightening to children, unquote, but kills fear in the wise. Again, quote: Rare are helpful speakers, listeners are rarer, but rarer still are words which, though unpleasant, help at once. It’s breaking me up every time I hear it.
Because of the subtlety and difficulty of understanding the exact nature of this misconception an ‘I’, then take care always to practice giving ethics and patience. To make this point even more strongly, he asks: What are the attributes of a man of policy? As a direct question to the King. For his own benefit and for the benefit of others, the King is advised to renounce lust, gambling, intoxicants, hunting game and a range of other non virtuous actions. Renunciation of this kind is the method for becoming a bodhisattva, and on that basis one can become a Buddha if one practices a compassion which reaches all quarters and develops a wisdom which relies not on duality.
Having all the conducive conditions to practice Dharma, it’s possible to free oneself from the root cause of suffering, the misapprehension that the ‘I’ exists. But how appalling that we might escape alone and in so doing turn our backs on the suffering of others. Such a thought generates an extensive compassion that transforms the practice of Dharma. This great compassion demands a more intensive effort to achieve a state of complete freedom from suffering because it is from that state that we might be of most benefit to others. The most important practice then is to actualise the Dharma in one’s mind because until one has achieved that, one continues to act out of delusion.
In chapter three and four, Nāgārjuna reaffirms the limitless nature of a bodhisattva’s compassion and then returns to distinguish between high status and goodness. To eliminate all defects and maintain the virtues of the practices of high status, to wipe all misconceptions through the consciousness of reality, is the practice of goodness. Nāgārjuna outlines in some detail how these two practices are social in character. His advice involves creating centres of doctrine. Thurman refers to this advice as commitment to a pluralistic, enlightenment oriented educational effort, which should be considered as the major business of the whole nation.
Should construct images of Buddha, reliquaries and temples, sustain with all endeavour the excellent doctrine and assembly of monks, provide all types of support for practitioners who do not seek it. If your kingdom exists for the doctrine and not for fame or desire, then it will be extremely fruitful, if not its fruit will misfortune. This commitment to spiritual education is one obvious implication of the bodhisattva vow. To alleviate the suffering of others, dharma must be available. The bodhisattva vow makes little sense outside of that social action.
I think this is sort of a serious provocation for educators anyway. I think more recently in my own thinking as an up centres like Buddha House but how does does the Dharma engage in mainstream western institutions. We can talk about that later if you’re interested. But alleviating the suffering of others also demands a compassionate socialism to quote from Thurman. Or a Buddhist version of the welfare state which it does.
I mean if you read the third and the fourth chapters of Precious Garland, that’s almost what it sounds like, sort of a Buddhist socialism. Could Marx be a Buddhist? There’s at forty five verses devoted to this idea. One of the principles to be adopted by royal policy is one of generosity. It’s only through generosity that there is happiness in the future.
Another related is compassion. Just as you love to think what could be done to help yourself, so should you love to think what could be done to help others. You should establish through your influence barbers and doctors in your kingdom. Please establish rest houses and provide water vessels on all arid roadways. Always care compassionately for the sick, the unprotected, those stricken with suffering, the lowly, the poor and take special care to nourish them.
Provide stricken farmers with seeds and sustenance. Eliminate high taxes by reducing their rates. But then the practice of compassionate socialism demands wisdom. Even give poison to those whom it will help but do not give the best food to those whom it will not help. Appoint ministers who know good policy and who practice the doctrine.
In chapters three and four also Nāgārjuna continues to give clear instructions for the king’s own personal practice. It’s after all on the basis of his own personal practice that the King can know how actions and their effects agree. It is only compassionate action that can be of any benefit for him. He should make himself available for the use of others. You should respect most highly the excellent doctrine and its teachers, and you should listen reverently to it and then give it to others.
Take no pleasure in worldly talk. Stop debating in the interests of pride. Analyse your own mistakes yourself. Again, these are all quotes: ‘Consider the harm done by others as created by your former deeds. Be not angry.
Act in such a way that you do not cause more suffering and your own faults will disappear.’ At the very end of the fourth chapter, if to summarise this position Nāgārjuna confirms that the king should internalise firmly the practices of giving, ethics and patience, which were especially taught for householders and which have an essence of compassion. And if it’s not possible to rule religiously then it is right for you to become a monk. And these are the options that he gives the king. Being a king and practising the Bodhisattva path should not be contradictory. If one’s present sphere of action as a householder actually impedes the Bodhisattva path, then one takes robes as a monk or nun.
Nāgārjuna finishes the text with a final chapter which is devoted to summarising the bodhisattva deeds. On ethics, we should know the fifty seven faults. Giving is to give away completely all of one’s wealth. Ethics is to help others. Patience is to forsake anger.
Effort to delight in virtues. Concentration is unafflicted one pointedness. Wisdom is ascertainment of the meaning of truths. Compassion is the mind that savours only mercy and love for all beings. Incredibly concise, you know, definitions of the six perfections.
Having stabilised an aspirational Bodhicitta we commit to an engaging Bodhicitta and hence practice the six perfections. Again this all sounds sort of quite familiar, you know, presentation of Dharma but it’s sort of again in that you know the context of advice for lay practitioner. So in Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland, the nature of skilful means for the bodhisattva is clearly a central theme. Nāgārjuna dispels the view that the bodhisattva path is one of mystical quietism which entails getting on with realising one’s own Buddha nature in a way that is passive to the suffering of the world and hence world denying. Nāgārjuna dispels the view that all one can do until one becomes a Buddha is retreat from the world and practise in solitude.
Instead, the bodhisattva path is described as a possibility of practising the bodhisattva deeds in one sphere of activity, and that includes the lay household or a king as spiritual attainment is actually both a personal and social practice. There is no disentangling these two and hence a socially unengaged Buddhism makes no sense. And I might sort of stop That’s the, you know, the basis of my meditation on the precious garland. So should we you wanna talk about some of that or could go off in any any wonder you know, many directions? Or what any of that means for you and your own, you know, your own your own, you know, your own your own life.
Whether you’ve had similar thoughts or One thing I thought of when you spoke about compassion, developing compassion. You didn’t sort of talk about it in terms of your own life that was more in meditation meditation practice developing in your mind. From my experience, I’ve found it depends what happens to you in life. Yeah. Your opportunities to develop compassion in in real life situations.
And then So that becomes the prompt for you. Well well, it’s the test. Yeah. The grist for the mill, so to speak. Yeah.
Yeah. That’s what I’m Yeah. Yeah. Well, that’s I I think that’s the times when when, you know, the meditation practices for me become incredibly important when you’re having serious trouble with someone. If I because I practiced Vipassana Uh-huh.
Vipassana. Style meditation. Been doing that for about twenty six, twenty seven years. Okay. And if I had not practiced, I I’ve had much opportunity to tell them to come come my way.
Yeah. If I had not practiced that, I’m so grateful that I have. Yeah. Yeah. So it’s different for everyone.
No. I think, you know, the you know, think, you know, the the point, of course, is that, you Dharma practice isn’t and can’t be running away. Candidates always it’s always about living in the world. I think that’s I think that’s the basic At what point would it be sitting on a cushion for hours and hours if you couldn’t use what you developed sitting Without without without your engagement in the world, then there’s there’s not there’s naught to there’s naught to engage one’s mind in. It would be a self selfish practice.
Yeah. Otherwise Yeah. Yeah. Just by definition. Definition, think that’s right.
I think I was, you know, in last week’s in last week’s, you know, introduction, at one point, I was I was I was I was sort of proposing that the, you know, this this this sort of world denying version of Buddhism could be a bit of a sort of a straw man. But I was making an argument that that that sort of that version of of the dharmas, you know, is is evident in various places. And I think I was trying to make an argument for how do we how do we make the, you know, the the sort of socially engaged version of Buddhism, you know, more acceptable or you know the maybe even more robust than just the I mean the examples that we’re sort of giving is the level of sort of everyday life in which our Dharma practice arises out of the conditions of the everyday. Hence it’s always socially engaged. I guess what I’m arguing is how does one go a bit further than that?
How one conceive of one’s Dharma practice and as being world transforming? Well, I’ve always seen it as a tool to develop one’s mind, to purify one’s mind because I grew up in Church of England boarding schools and went to people three times a day. Of day. And when I finished with that, I was desperate to find something else that, you know, I could use was wonderful, but I still was humry for something that was more transforming. Yeah.
Yeah. I think that’s such a fairly typical story for, you know, Westerners being really, really dissatisfied with the with the, you know, the resources that the the Christian tradition provide provides, having to look elsewhere for It’s interesting now. I’m going back to reading the bible. Yeah. Yeah.
So have I. But but yeah. I think Matthew’s fantastic. At all. I think they do the church I went to didn’t provide, you know, meditation.
I think I had some mystical experiences listening to my mother sing because she was such a good singer, but that wasn’t that you know, that was not that helpful eventually. It was good when I was ten. Just on saying how trying to get away from the idea of Buddhism as another world and sort of thing now. I mean, the way it’s often presented as if we’re thinking of getting out of St. Saas, that’s the real goal.
That by implication is sort of denying Escaping the world. Escaping the world in a sense. It’s like saying, you know, this is not important. Getting out of the cycle of rebirth is the really important thing, isn’t it? You know?
So there’s sort of a it is built in there, you know? And I mean, it’s certainly a very well, it’s a fundamental part of the structure you might say. Know? I guess it depends on if, you know, you I’m just saying how it’s presenting Yes. Course.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean that I mean, you you that, of course, this you know, you can you can reframe that as well, can’t you? Because then there’s what is it? There’s not an atom atom of difference between saṃsāra and nirvana.
So it’s what’s the other version that gets very confusing? AAtisha defining the dharma as give up this life in your mind, which which can which can I think in a, you know, common sense way mean run from the world? But, of course, it’s not. It’s just how how one’s it’s it’s it’s Yes, you do. Yeah.
That’s Well, that’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? It’s you’re it’s you’re in a viewpoint. You’re in a Well, it’s it’s it’s how it’s it’s it’s it’s not that you’re running from the world, it’s you’re running from craving for the world, for for for the material world, for the sense pleasures and Relationship to the world. Yeah. The relationship to the world.
It’s not running from the world. Itself. I think that’s where it’s it’s it’s sort of subtle, actually. If you if you if you take the the wrong attitude to that, then it can sound like it’s world denying. Like, you know, you gave other the other example.
Vehicles, and this is accepted within the terror bomb as well, the Buddha’s Satya vehicle and the hearer’s vehicle, which is the the goal of which is solitary or individual liberation. But the Buddha himself went through a great deal ordeal in order to adopt certain abilities to be able to benefit others. So he himself modeled a way of spiritual aspiration, aspiration, which was orientated toward the world. And then also, there’s there’s this yeah. As as you as you pointed out, I think there’s a there’s no identity between the world and.
But isn’t isn’t built into the model the idea of gaining them right first? I mean, returning to, you know, once you’ve attained that, then open the world? I don’t I think no. I mean, I mean, if you think you the tales, but, yeah, the stories of the Buddha. Okay.
And these are based upon the Buddha’s his his career as a Buddha’s doctor doing all these various deeds in the world. Sure. Even before he attained enlightenment, he was serving the world. So it’s not a matter of some quantum state that you have to leave, right, before you actually do anything. And and, you know, distinguishing between the, you know, the end point and the journey and so on and so forth, you know, the path is the end and so on, perhaps.
And so so it’s only in skillful engagement with the world that one one’s enlightenment happens. You know? I think Yeah. You know what I mean? Like, there’s no running away and then coming back.
It’s skillful engaging with the the conditions for one’s enlightenment, perhaps. I think there’s been historical development in the emphasis. I think initially it was very nasty and individual centered and seeking individual liberation. But I think the Bodhisattva theme, which is world engaging, always been. Just that, you know, even even even on that analysis, one can propose that, you know, in the Theravadin tradition, you know, extent in the world now, the the the Thai examples of the Thai forest dwelling monks have got their own sort of political project around conservation and I think probably Terravadan tradition in Sri Lanka are peace activists and you know what I mean?
Like, I think the, you know, the the distinction between Mahāyāna and Vaden is is even you know, that’s sort of difficult to sustain one being more worldly than the other in terms of one’s political Even if you come from Terra Vaden. They had to go to, even within Therabad, they accept the doctrine of the Bodhisattva vehicle, and what they call a Pratyekabuddha. So it’s always been So the idea of social engagement has always been. It’s just the emphasis I mean, the term socially engaged Buddhism to me, the socially engaged part of that sounds very much like a Western terminology. I mean, I just can’t imagine something like that coming from a traditional Well, I think I think bachelors argument that it comes from the Vietnamese tradition.
Yeah. Mhmm. But but it’s like something’s happening. You know, people might be something, but putting a label on it, socially engaged, sounds like a very Western type of definition to me. Yeah.
Well, again The idea of us, you know, analyzing a society, what are the forces that make a society, all this sort of stuff sounds like a very Again, it looks like and I I haven’t I haven’t I haven’t tracked back the sort of, you know, the the history of the term so on and so forth. But, you know, that that that that provocation that I I was referring to last week from Thich Nhat Hanh. How how can I sit in the in the in the temple when the when, you know, the village is being bombed? Maybe maybe that that that was quite a quite a serious question in the Vietnamese Zen tradition in the nineteen thirties. And so they’re having to think carefully about how they conceive of their practice and then invoke the notion of being socially engaged as being the way, so to speak.
You know, don’t know. Does sort of, perhaps it was just my own autobiographical engagement. The Dharma Centre provides the sort of respite from the world. I can run from the world and go and sit there and then everything will be okay. That just appears to me to, you know, might work okay for a while but eventually it doesn’t seem to be consistent with what the dharma’s about and so one needs this, you know, a socially engaged has the energy to become engaged in whatever’s around you, your family, your work.
Yeah. Again, there’s definitely, you know, someone who’s been meditating for twenty five years, you’d know this. You’re much better able to, you know, to operate in the world. Yeah. Well, personally for me, I’d be locked up probably if I didn’t meditate.
So I don’t know how you go. I’m just very grateful that I found it. Yeah. This is a slight diversion that only reflects something I’ve been reading the last week, but threw out a line there perhaps Marx was a Buddhist or Yes. Whatever.
It it’s just that there is, I think, a great danger in people thinking we’ve got the real answer. The rest of them haven’t got it, but we’ve got it, and we’ll do we’ll impose this for their own good. You know? There’s been plenty of examples of that, and I think communism is probably one. And, you know, what goes on in Cambodia, Pol Pot.
Yes. Great ideas in a few people’s minds who think, you know, we can we can impose a new beginning, you know. I’m not I’m not saying that socially engaged Buddhism is anything like that, but it’s just That would seem to be antithetical to the Dharma, wouldn’t it? Oh yeah, absolutely. But the idea of getting some utopian view which you can impose on people.
For their own good. Almost a bit of a slippery slope sometimes if it’s not very carefully managed. I think the reasons, that’s one of the things that sort of attracts me to boredom is the, you know, people aren’t out on the street dragging people into dharma centers and there’s Just that it seems to me that I don’t know I suppose it would be possible for the dharma to be completely corrupted but it doesn’t appear to me to be certainly hasn’t been my experience of it anyway, it just gets, it doesn’t operate as dogma. That you have to believe because someone told you that it was true. That seems to be antithetical to the Dharma.
In fact there are lots of the Buddha’s teachings which if there was that Dharma then some of the sutras would have to be destroyed because Buddha’s own teachings argue that you test it for yourself and don’t believe me and so on and so on. That’s all confirmed by Sutras. That’s how the Dharma has been passed on intergenerationally. The foisting it onto people is a dogma. But then maybe, maybe, maybe that’s been the case in some countries where, you know, the sort of the sort of mystical experience part of it’s been sort of lost.
I don’t know. It’s hard to know, really. I mean, one of the things that I found interesting about just visiting Japan recently was you’ll you’ll like this. I I met up with a professor of education who he was he was teaching Theravadin meditation in the in the Japanese university and and not Zen. And and we we sort of asked him, you know, where where was Zen?
And it was, you know, seen as being a sort of an oddity, a tourist attraction. And to to to get access to the meditation tradition, he goes to the Theravadin, you know, Goenka. So he’s teaching mindfulness, which was it’s funny, I I reckon. So you’ve got this country that’s I think Zen’s everywhere, but the the the the intergenerational translation of of of a sort of Zen practice, I think, is probably in very, very small numbers of people in Japan now. You can’t you can’t you couldn’t make an argument that there’s a lot of meditators, a lot of Zen meditators in Japan.
Might be more in San Francisco. Might be more in the West. I don’t know. You Google every you Google, you know, a city and and put Zen in there, there’ll be a few Zen there’ll be Zen center. I think, you know, my own Googling of of Japan, was possible to go and experience Zai Zen in in some monasteries.
But, again, it seemed like it was a tourist thing. Quite unusual. So it’s almost like the translation from Asian countries to the West has sort of unleashed the sort of meditation practices, but not not so extent. Well, you know, Goenka’s meditation starts in Burma? Or was it U Ba King?
Still it’s still that that that tradition would still be extended in Burma if you can get to it. Obviously. Who was it? Was it Jack Kornfield that wrote that book? Living Buddhist Masters?
Where he had the you know that book? What’s it called? Living Buddhist Masters. It was called. I don’t know.
Go ahead. Read it. Yeah. Because it goes through some of the Thai Yeah. There’s some there’s some Thai and Burmese, ma’am.
There’s some women meditation masters. Sit still. Don’t move. Just sit still. Yeah.
I guess the you know, to, you know, continue on the, you know, the problems that I’ve, you know, that I’ve been sort of having in my own, you know, my own practice. You know, you you you run from the world into the Dharma center, and then you sort of you get your life under control to some degree. And you you know, but you still are active. What what one might do in terms of compassionate action isn’t on the curriculum at the Dharma Centre. There’s in fact there’s no one to talk to about it really.
In fact political actions frowned upon, even political action on behalf of Tibet is not really possible out of the Dharma Centre because it could undermine the you know, the visas for the Geshis and so on and so on. You know, the Dharma Centre is not to be seen as a split space for political action. If you wanted to do that, one needs to go and do that somewhere else. Having took taken advice from Rinpoche on this a few times. Coming back to last week, where you made a well, there was a generalized question about Buddhism being, say, weak politically.
Yes. You’re just saying I was thinking about during the week because I think it’s always important to try and understand the historical context of anything you come across. As much as you can know, what was the context where Buddhism arose and developed and so forth. And of course, particularly with the monastic emphasis in the early days, that relationship between the Sangha being given land either by the wealthy, the kings, whatever, and being given food by the people. There’s this real relationship there where politically you could say they couldn’t afford upset those in power.
And of course, on the other side, you’ve got to behave correctly in order not to put off the local people to ensure your food supply. That’s fine. But there is a relationship in the sense that there are expectations up and down about that, down from those in power, up from those who are followers and so forth and so on. So it almost links into just what you were saying, that if you’re going to have a robust sort of political action, you’ve almost got to have some sort of independence, independent source of income, independent source of food, whatever, in order to risk upsetting people in authority. I just wonder whether, coming back to last week’s question, some of those historical factors, you know, about it being a monastic based created a sort of atmosphere, helped to create an atmosphere where pursuit of the individual practice, low key social engagement is just a practical method of survival.
Yes. And perhaps in many political contexts, that is the way that it gets played out. Again, in Japan, the I went into a number of temples that were they were they were given by the shogun to the, you know, the So to sect or whatever. So the relationship between the aristocracy in the country and the religious traditions, they’re obviously working off of each other. But then, okay, let’s you juxtapose that with, you know, there’s Naga Nāgārjuna four hundred years after Buddha.
I’m not quite sure. Is Nāgārjuna beholden to is the Nālānda University beholden to the Brahmins? I’m not sure. I mean, historically, later on. I mean, if you look at monasteries and Tibet as an example, where they became sort of landholders in their own right.
I mean, that changes the whole dynamic, doesn’t it? But I’m just throwing out that other I guess this is where, you know, I don’t know how you go, but the the sort of spiritual figures, you know, in history that that that that I really admire are not the ones that are going along with the with the, you know The crowd. With the, you know, who’s in power. Yeah. It’s the ones that are it’s the ones who are sort of speaking back.
And and and, you know, their vows of poverty, they take them incredibly seriously, and that’s on that basis that they can. You know what I mean? And those and those who do go along with the crowd are actually seen as being incredibly abominable. The Catholics and the Nazis and, you know, I mean there’s plenty of examples where you ‘ve got Bonhoeffer and a whole range of other Christians who gave up their lives in fact. I guess it comes back to, it probably should have been another, mean you sort of give a prompt here as, you know, what does it mean to be ethical?
So you’ve got sort of an ethics. And given what you’ve just said there, where where does where does the ethical decision step in? When does one speak? I guess that’s what politics is in the end for me. When’s there when’s there sort of a a contesting when when Powell’s in play?
True. But but as you say, I think this is this this requires for If it is orientation is identifying the world with same thought, whatever promotes liberation the light of serving some kind of higher good. And they can begin to rationalize a lot of social injustice. Because it just serves, if you were to write these wrongs, would only serve to mire people deeper into saṃsāra. Become more comfortable.
They could learn renunciation. You’re not arguing for that, though? Ethic of individualism. If it feels good, that’s what you should do. And that I would object to that because I think there’s a higher, there’s something, don’t think that leads to happiness, but that’s my interpretation.
So I would say don’t go chasing after that new BMW. No. But I would be forcing my particular ethic or my particular viewpoint upon these on them. That would so that’s just leading to that in that sense, leading that direction in some way or another. I’m not talking about liberation, but contentment.
But that’s simply another step along the way. But a lot of the way the capitalist system, you’d have to you’d have to begin to think of the capitalist system isn’t really serving people well. Exactly. And so you’d have to, they can’t avoid some kind of value judgment and and hoisting your ideas of people? Well, is it foisting them, or is it just I guess I guess this is this is this is this is where for me anyway, it gets sort of a bit this is where it really does get sort of trickier about whether or not just articulating, you know, a articulating, you know, a sort of a Buddhist position is about sort of, you know, we’ve got a we’ve got a, you know, a civil society in which people can put views up and, you know, there’s various contestations.
In some cases, the arguments put as though it’s you know, you you are being harangued. And, you know, we I mean, I don’t know how you go, but I I I find that, you know, some of the way that the debate in the public culture gets done pretty obnoxious and doesn’t mean that a Buddhist would need to do it that way. Again, going along to I mean, and is it next week we’re gonna do the Dalai Lama? I mean, the Dalai Lama engages in the public sphere, you know, fairly regularly on a whole range of issues, which some that I’ll, you know, I’ll canvas next week. One could say that he’s engaging you know, political issues, you know, critiques of various things.
Usually, he’s got various caveats about, you know, kindness towards others and so on and so on. But, you know, he’s not he doesn’t he doesn’t do it doesn’t do it out of anger or you know? So it’s I’m sure there’s a there’s a way of, you know, engaging engaging in the public conversation about the about the about the nature of the social in a in a way that’s consistent with the Buddhist ethic. That’s all. I mean, I I I’m sort of grappling with about the secular.
Yeah. Oh, yeah. But it’s occupation. Yeah. Yeah.
I don’t believe that for a minute. I’ve read that I’ve read that book a couple of times when he’s making an argument for a secular ethics as Buddhist for sure. He’s got the robes on. He’s only a single simple monk and so on and so forth, but his set of ideas all comes out of out of his erudite Buddhism. You know what I mean?
Like, I think it’s possible to to, you know, to secularize it, but it’s still you know? I can see why he’s doing what he’s doing. I mean, part of the problem, if you’re going to engage in dialogue as you need and you want people to actually listen to what you’re saying, you have to engage in a way that they can relate to, don’t you? You can’t come out of left field and present a whole lot of stuff that people either don’t understand or or will almost instinctively reject. And I think in our society, as soon as you put a religious tag on something Yes.
I mean, that’s that’s obviously wise. As well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
He wants to broaden his audience. There’s no doubting that. I mean, I think that I think that’s incredibly skillful as well. But in terms of what you’re, you know, you’re talking about in wrestling with this, how do you engage? Yeah.
I mean, if you’re gonna engage with a wider society in order to avoid the shutters going up straight away. Yeah. You know, it has to be done in a way that people can relate to. Yeah. Mean, this is this is a problem this is a problem for Buddhism.
There’s no doubting that. We almost have a, like, a little language of our own, don’t we? Know? Well, we are we are read as being religious and a bit nutty and so on as well. Even if was putting a tag over the Buddhist rod that I’m saying straight away a lot of people would Oh yeah, no I’ve had this experience in Japan.
Every time I’ve come out as a Buddhist in the Western University context, it’s almost like coming out as being gay. You know, there’s been some oddity. So, know, in the conference that we were at, which is in a Western University context, very secular, even in a, you know, so called Buddhist country. The panel that I was on had a Korean woman and three Western, you know, basically white westerners. So this a secular education?
Secular education conference. We were seen as over romanticising the east. Okay. And because we were actually, I think it’s all well and good to be knowledgeable about Eastern philosophies but as soon as you admit to being practitioner of them then that’s over romanticizing them because as soon as you’re a practitioner of them then you no longer have critical distance from them. So you’re instantly then you’ve gone over to the other side so to speak.
And then we were asked by one speaker to how are we validating our personal experience in a scientific sense? They didn’t engage with the ideas they just wanted to read us as unscientific and over romanticizing these traditions that they I don’t know whether they study them or not. It’s difficult to know. You don’t have to study when you can just say to someone you’ve over romanticized. You can respond to any presentation that had a religious tag in that fashion.
Anyone wants to stop a discussion that’s a quick way to do it. Of course in the case of meditation experience it’s possible and you would have done this I’m sure you can validate your own experience in conversation with other practitioners with teachers with a whole commentary of you know meditation texts that are you know thousand years old you can get confirmation can’t you about your experience. Probably there’s more chance of being able to validate a meditation experience through the Buddhist literature than there would be to validate subjective experience inside of psychotherapy. You know what I mean? Like the western tradition, western psychology’s attempt to try and validate particular subjective states.
There is more material. If you want to, you know, I guess that’s the importance and the role of the teacher when one’s meditating as well. Because if you are attempting the sort of internal transformation then you do need some validation occasionally just to make sure you’re doing the right thing. I I don’t know how you go but I’ve certainly had to do that plenty of times when you get a bit confused and you need a bit of confidence in that you know you’re doing it right. I think this was the thing that one of the things which individuals that I want to sort of talk about in the next few weeks.
Thing that, one of the attributes that they have that makes them so compelling is you know, they walk the talk. Where a lot of other social commentators can spout a lot of ideas but when one interrogates their own person then it doesn’t stack up that well. Where the Dalai Lama seems to stack up. But back to that, you know, thing that about, I think I mentioned it about, you know, two thirds of the way into my presentation, Nāgārjuna advice around education. That sort of speaks directly to one of my concerns being that for fifteen years I was a secondary school teacher and the last fifteen I’ve been working in the university and I don’t get paid to teach the Dharma, I get paid to teach sort of other other ideas and how does one how does one, you know, take Nāgārjuna’s advice.
You know, that does appear to me to be sort of a political project. In that society, wasn’t wasn’t it a Buddhist society? Mhmm. Yeah. Well, it’s easier there, obviously.
Quite different. Mhmm. It is different, but then it’s not that different either, I don’t think. There’s still the the the challenge about how how how does one, you know, set up set up, you know, educational spaces for practitioners. Spaces for practitioners.
I guess that’s one other thing, you know, like this professor, this Japanese professor. I just found it sort of really interesting that he’d found a space inside of a secular university to teach mindfulness and was actually doing that with the imprimatur of the university. Yeah, I think it’s, you know, the mindfulness ideas sort of seems to be one place that Dharma ideas are are having serious conversations with a whole range of different disciplines. That mindfulness group in the hospital and someone pointed out to me recently, there’s a book called Mindful Management. Mhmm.
Straight. That’s not a contradiction or an oxymoron. So, yeah, here here again, when you’re thinking about the, you know, a conversation conversation of, you know, Buddhist philosophy, psychology, you know, whatever discipline you’re talking about, how it’s start you know, the the the the the translation into the sort of Western Western canon is happening in the in the psychological traditions and now it’s starting to get into management. And then probably that’s going into management through psychology, actually. Think management’s always been about psychology.
Well, I guess what I’m proposing is what about Western sociology and Western political sciences? You know, how how does it translate over into those disciplines as well? And what does that mean? Because, again, you’ve got the if it’s coming in on the cycle psychological, then that’s still really about the individual. It’s gotta be saying something to, you know, our theories of the social.
Because the psychological is more about fitting into the society you’re in, isn’t it? Think whereas what you’re talking about is changing the society Yes. To some degree. And I I suppose in this case, I’m trying to keep the personal and the social together. Yeah.
So how does the social how’s the social transform to make personal liberation possible? You know, like which way you know what I mean? Yeah. Because you can see you can see how the and I think probably this is in Buddhist cosmology actually that the social becomes so degenerate that personal liberation becomes an almost impossibility. The conditions are no longer evident.
So unless we struggle over the social then, Dharma practice becomes an impossibility. And certainly there’s places on the earth where it isn’t already, you know, hell on earth. Or as much it’s very very difficult. It’s always possible, of course. Isn’t it even possible to practice Dharma in hell as in the heavy but you know what I mean.
The government of that country is by individual politicians, So each individual who becomes a politician will it will depend on how they’ve developed personally through their lives and what influences they have. So it always goes back Yeah. I suppose what I’m talking about in terms of politics is not just collapsing it to, you know, voting every four years and sort of political is for me is much sort of broader than that. I think that’s I want to consider myself political in the sense that I get to vote once every three or four years. I can demonstrate on the street.
I can engage in, you know, whole range of different sort of political activity. You know, in my own work, for instance, what I get to research is sort of a political act. As an educator that’s interested in social justice then there’s a whole range of possible focuses for doing research. A classic one for me in the last few years has been Australian reconciliation. You know, the relationships between indigenous and non indigenous people.
And that’s a site for doing political work that doesn’t necessarily rely on just what goes on in parliament. There’s sort of a the whole cultural sphere is a place for politics. I wouldn’t want to leave politics out to the politicians. Well, that’s where most of the major policies are made. Well, that’s yeah.
But the policies the policies are made on the basis of a whole complex series of things that are going on outside. Politicians are, know, stay in power they’ve to do something in response to problems. As an example, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in custody happened as a consequence of Aboriginal mothers making a big stink in the late 1980s. So, you know, certain actions cause governments to do things. That’s how that’s politics.
Lots of people marching on the streets. Well, sometimes that works. Seems to be less these days. But then it does appear as though it, you know, has an impact occasionally. Then walk the walks across the bridge.
That’s that had a did you do one of those? No. I did. They they did it in Adelaide. I went to that.
It was quite it was quite interesting. Just related more generally to the whole cluster, socially engaged Buddhism. You can correct me here, but what I’m back to say might be unfair. I’m not sure. But it sort of strikes me probably in hindsight that probably a number of the texts that I’ve heard taught were originally written for a monastic audience.
And I suppose it Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand. Whatever. Quite a few others. I mean, took me a long time to actually tweak that hang on. This is actually aimed at a monastic male audience and so forth.
And we’re such a different audience here. Now I’m just wondering whether part of this it’s early days here, but I’m just wondering if this is part of the issue as far as you’re concerned because you receive a teaching like like that that’s not really it can’t be directed to the type of audience we are. So now we end up just like you were describing, Saying, okay, what do we do with this? How do I adapt this sort Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. That is part of the grist for me. I mean, think I mentioned Yeah. I think I Just saying that, yeah, the teaching doesn’t direct it can’t directly directly address the issues No. As you see.
No. Not to say that there’s not, you know, a whole range of truths in that presentation. Yeah. You know? I love Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand.
Just going back to extracting There’s this teaching that’s central at Buddha House that was given in the nineteen twenties to thousands of monks, and one of the monks wrote it down. And it’s, well, you know, one of the really extensive commentaries of a famous text. But it was, you know, given in that context. And it was a commentary on a particular text that that’s, you know, a thousand years old that that was designed for a particular country a thousand years ago to retrieve the Dharma from being corrupted. Wasn’t that the, you know, the conditions for AAtisha’s lamp for the path?
Alright. East to the west. It’s going to take a long time. Yeah. Yeah.
It’s the and that is it’s an it’s interesting times really being a westerner when when the Dharma’s this new. I mean, even just this famous you know, this what’s that meeting that Dalai Lama has with the mind science The mind science. Years ago where they talked about low self esteem being very common in the West. And they seemed to be rather surprised by this. This was something unheard of almost in Tibetan society.
It just strikes me that societies all must have their own sort of issues that come within that society, the way people are raised, the pressures, the emphasis in different societies. There’s no way that some of our issues you can go back to the traditional teachings and looking for an answer. It just doesn’t seem to fit. There’s this enormous work involved in extracting things, the wisdom out of the traditional teachings. But then applying it to our own circumstances, our own issues, which we won’t find any answers directly.
You’ve you’ve been on the Sunday morning roster. I hope. And and it it it it it’s an interesting challenge, isn’t it? When you go go and read go and read Geshe Rabten’s Lam Rim meditation, and then and then you try that one out on Sunday morning and it just doesn’t sort of work because the people don’t sort of get it. And you need to, you know, translate it somehow rather into into a presentation that’s gonna work for, you know, the Adelaide punters on Sunday in two thousand and eight.
Particularly in an environment on Sunday morning where there’s no opportunity for question and answer and discussion afterwards to clarify. No. It’s just like you sit there. Here’s the presentation. Finished.
Yeah. Yeah. It’s really That’s where that’s where the rubber hits the road with Dharma practice. Absolutely. Trying to trying to design a Enormously.
An analytical meditation that’s gonna work that doesn’t doesn’t lose the basic idea, but works with this with this group. It’s totally different in Eastern. I spent a month, years, you know, after I’ve been sitting for about ten years, I went to the Vipassana and Mother Center near Bombay. Oh, yeah. Did a ten day, sat one, and then served one.
And it’s just totally different there. So how different was it? Can you talk about that? Well, I had a sense of, yeah, this is where it comes from. I understand now.
It’s just like second nature to them. It’s a spiritual life. Some of you must have been to India. I mean, soon as you get to the airport you can sense a different feel to how it is here. A spiritual life is the most important thing for them.
Mediteachings, I mean there are so many Vipassana centers in India because it’s a wealthy country. People donate land and little centres flourish everywhere and spring up and flourish. Here it’s just such a struggle. Yeah. Know?
Yeah. Everything’s It’s not seen as a waste of time over there, is it? Well, it’s just the most important part of life. Yeah. Yeah.
And, you know, they can be like you’re meditating in your cell and they’re renovating outside and there’s a heck of a den, but it’s easy to meditate. Yeah. Because the vibration is so Yeah. It doesn’t matter. Yeah.
It’s so different. Very worthwhile experience going there. It’s kind of lasted me a long time. Oh, okay. You’re you’re sort of feeding off it, were you?
Getting a lot of sustenance from it? Yeah. I mean, that’s, like, fifteen years ago. So it’s very worthwhile, I think, for serious meditators to go to the east and to to mother centers and so forth. Did you find that in Dharmasala?
Jampa lived in for a long time. Oh, yeah. I think it was very the environment was very supportive to practice. karma, the notion of karma and the notion yeah. The notion of karma is very permeates is very kind of they’re brought up with that.
So they’re very they’re careful about how they act. So I don’t whether they’re most of them aren’t particularly trying to achieve any particular I mean, the the lay people. Yeah. So at the everyday at the level of everyday life, though, it’s quite It’s very supportive. Yeah.
Mhmm. To if you that’s your inclination. It’s a good environment. Yeah. As opposed to yeah.
Yeah. Would be for sure. It’s very socially engaging there. Well, the social environment is sort of very supportive. I guess this is where, you know, there is a relation between the two.
But then again, of course, what is it in the the seven point mind training? The third point. Using adverse adverse circumstances as the path. We’re we’re we’re at the we’re living in the right times. Just to, you know, as as you’re saying, though, if you’re if you’re if you’re trying to sort of develop a practice as a Westerner, then having supportive conditions does appear to be really, really important.
Practice is a whole notion about what it is to go. I mean, the whole notion about what we’re doing. Yeah. It’s still hasn’t been translated into Western sensibility. No.
No. No. It’s quite immature and young, isn’t it? Yeah. In comparison to India.
Mhmm. Still in your in For them it’s it’s not and for them it’s it’s nothing extraordinary to meditate. Yeah. And you also have great expectations about what going to get out of this investment in time and energy that you’re setting aside. You’re depriving yourself of watching It’s a work in progress.
Yeah. Yeah. On that positive note, perhaps we can end there. Thanks very much. Thank you.
Oh, yeah. We should probably. We didn’t last time. I think I forgot. I think there is a finishing pre