dharmatalks

David Pearson writes: “Dharmacharya, could you explain where your teaching fits in overall in the Buddhist world? From what lineage and tradition are your monks associated? And have you not been expelled from that lineage, since your approach to the vinaya is ‘non-traditional’ at best? I mean no disrespect, but find it troubling that you are referred to by so many as a lama and Buddhist monk, yet your path seems to break with Buddhist tradition.”

Thank you for your patience, in waiting for a response, David. (David’s question was received in early December, but I asked him if he would kindly wait until January 18th for my response, and he was kind enough to oblige.)

One of my teachers said that I would know when the time was right to freely discuss my path, and told me that I should wait until I had served for thirty years as a Buddhist contemplative, and at least five years as the shepherd of the progressive Catholic contemplatives entrusted to my pastoral care.

Today marks six years since I was consecrated as a successor to the apostles, and is a White Tara Day in the Tibetan tradition. Since I took my vows as a Buddhist monk on a White Tara Day as well, over 30 years ago, I have chosen this auspicious day to answer David’s question, because I believe it is a question many have wanted to know about for some time.

There have been critics, as many know, from various camps, concerning the teaching, the tradition of our intentional community and our way of life. These critics have, from the very start, struggled to understand where we “fit in” in the overall scheme of things. And for thirty years now, there have been those who questioned whether or not I was suited to teach the path I have shared.

I don’t expect any of that to change.

My lineage is derived from as diverse a tapestry of beloved teachers as the tradition itself. My lineage includes transmission of the Advaita Vedanta and Buddha Dharma from Swami Abishiktananda (Father Henri LeSaux, OSB) of Santivinam (Saccidananda Ashram) in Tamil Nadu (Madras), India.  The transmission of Japanese Zen in the Omoto-kyo lineage was given by Robert Danza Sensei, who received transmission directly from Morehei Ueshiba-san and his Master Onisaburu Deguchi-san. While I have been fortunate to receive Kalachakra empowerment from His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, I must consider my Root Guru to be Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati (who was named Tenzin Yangchen by the Dalai Lama), whose lineage is derived from our Satguru Sri Neem Karoli Baba, Swami Muktananda, Swami Nityananda and Ramana Maharishi. And my apostolic lineage can be directly traced, in unbroken succession to the original disciples, James, John, Judas-the-Twin (Mar Thoma of India), Thaddeus and Bartholomew.

A Word About Lineages

There are frequent discussions online about lineage, and often, it is suggested that one ensure the pedigree of one’s guru or teacher, based on “approved” lineages, as an alleged means of ensuring that one is receiving the Dharma accurately. This type of approach is particularly espoused by some of the Tibetan traditions, and frequently results in students engaging in somewhat questionable banter about how “qualified” this teacher or that is, based on lineage.

Now I understand that recognising a particular lineage can serve as something of a superficial assurance, when seeking a potential teacher or sectarian affiliation, but it is never anything more than that – a superficial assurance.

The Buddha did not tell students to seek out a pure lineage or superior lineage, but rather to test and question everything they were taught, using reasoning, logic and the internal compass as a guide.

When my Root Guru was unable to teach me certain Tibetan and Bon practices, I sought permission to be released to study with other teachers, qualified and adept in such aspects of the Dharma. And I am grateful for having received the permission to study elsewhere, as much as I am to those teachers who taught (and some who continue to teach) me.

But I would never condescend by arrogantly bandying about that I hold this lineage or that. I hold nothing but a desire to alleviate suffering. If a student is looking to accumulate prestigious lineages, I will tell them that I cannot give that to them, despite the fact that many would consider the lineages of transmission I hold to be admirable or “qualified” by their temporal standards.  I am not in the business of lineage brokerage. I am a Dharma teacher.

But What About the Purity of the Tradition?

I am troubled by the sectarianism that I see in Buddhism. While it is natural and beautiful for the Dharma to have developed such diversity throughout the East, in no small part, due to the efforts of Guru Rinpoche and the Great Lama Je Tsongkhapa, Milarepa and Nagarjuna; it saddens me when I find practitioners becoming so attached to the traditions, sadhanas and interpretations of texts that they begin to have disdain for those from other traditions. Such attitudes are the attitudes of religion, and Buddha surely did not come to start a religion.

I draw deeply from the Tibetan tradition, because there is an affinity for Je Tsongkhapa which arose in me at a very early age, for reasons I cannot explain. And therefore, certain sadhanas have become part of my practice and path. But my path is most influenced by the Dzogchen tradition, not because I believe it is superior to any other, but because it organically felt like a continuation of the work I came here to complete.

Similarly, my tradition as a teacher of the Christ Dharma is influenced by Zen and Dzogchen, because these paths express the life the Master led, and can be found in the dharma transmission of Mar Thoma of India (the brother and disciple of Rav Yeshua/Jesus). Again, I feel no compulsion toward a particular religion, because I do not believe Yeshua, like Buddha, wished to start a religion in any way; nor do I subscribe to the legends and errant notions that any of his apostles set out to do so either.

Traditions were not intended to be pure, but rather to be celebrated. And a celebration is dynamic, living, changing. Therefore I dismiss the idea of preserving the “purity” of a tradition, because such things are ego-driven pursuits, which have distracted even the greatest of Dharma masters and throne holders throughout time.

Labels… Labels… Labels…

Labels can be useful for helping us to communicate. But they are no substitution for understanding.

I can speak to you of “fire”, but unless you’ve experienced fire, you only hold a rough conceptual idea of it. I must first define fire for you, and then offer some sort of demonstration to affirm that what I suggest is physically “real”.  Then you can comprehend more fully what fire is.

Our understanding of the Dharma is no different. We must begin with what we call pramana in Sanskrit, or valid cognition. We learn the qualities and function of the Buddha and the Buddha Mind, just as we learn the qualities and functions of fire. And once we’ve attained this valid cognition, we can begin to build upon that so that understanding gives rise to wisdom and integration, and wisdom gives rise to realisation.

So how do I label myself and my community?

Well, the fact is that for the past thirty years, we felt no need to consider ourselves as anything other than monks. Some would call themselves Buddhist-Catholic monks, others would say Catholic-Buddhist monks.

But beginning in 2001, when we formally severed our ties with the Roman Catholic Church, and then again in 2006, when we severed our ties with institutional religion and sectarianism altogether, some significant distinctions arose, which I believe may have unintentionally caused discomfort for members of the Buddhist and Catholic contemplative communities at-large.

Our monks take refuge vows, like any other Buddhist practitioner, upon entering the Order. They commit to living according to our Rule of Life, and according to the precepts of the Order. The Rule of Life our monks live by can be found on the web here: http://www.orderofcompassion.com/rule_of_life.html and the precepts can be found on the Order’s website as well, by first going here and choosing the various links: http://www.orderofcompassion.com/about_the_dharma_of_compassion.html.

What? No celibacy?

That is correct. Notably absent from the lives of our monks is a prescription for or against celibacy. We recognise that attachments can arise due to sexual intimacy, but that they can also arise as a result of vowing to avoid sexual intimacy. Therefore, we chose to work a little harder, and more diligently, to become mindful of attachments, rather than seeking the “quick fix” that had become the custom in both the Buddhist and Catholic monastic environments. We also recognise that primitive attitudes toward sexuality in the ancient times influenced such prescriptions, and that a healthier attitude toward sexuality need not present barriers or obstacles to one’s path.

Now, given that important distinction, along with the fact that in the West, it is less acceptable for monks to beg for their food, shelter and sustenance, we developed an intentional community that operates from a postmodern, culturally relevant perspective, without diluting the essential message of the Dharma – that is, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Eight Verses of Mind Training, etc.

Which brings us to the question of whether or not we’ve unintentionally caused our sisters and brothers in the Sangha discomfort, anxiety or even anger.

And because it is clear to me that we have, I am asking all members of our Order, from this point forward, to stop referring to themselves as Buddhist monks or Catholic monks and nuns. Instead, we will identify ourselves as “contemplatives, drawing deeply from the Buddhist, Franciscan, Benedictine and Quaker traditions”. It would be acceptable, I think, to still refer to oneself as a Buddhist contemplative, or Buddhist-Catholic contemplative, etc. but to omit the use of the word monk, when prefacing it with Buddhist or Catholic.

I am not saying that we are no longer monks, because like it or not, with or without the approval of any particular sect, we are monks. Period. We are postmodern monks… non-sectarian monks… emergent monks. And no one has a right to take that from us.

What About Liturgy?

Every contemplative is free to express their spirituality in ways that they personally find appropriate, sacred and “right”. This may or may not include drawing from the wealth of Tibetan, Zen, Catholic, Celtic, Hindu or Bon traditions, or any other spiritual path, so long as those practices do not conflict with the essential nature, understanding and pursuit of the Dharma.

When a group gathers for darshan or Dharma instruction, we do not follow a strict “prescribed liturgy”. The type of liturgy we enjoy depends on the group itself, on the focus of that particular teaching, and on being present in the moment.

Isn’t that Syncretism?

Perhaps it can be called syncretism, for all spirituality has been influenced by various degrees of syncretism throughout human history.

Our tradition freely draws on other traditions, because we choose not to see the imaginary lines drawn in the sand separating one from another. We recognise and celebrate the truths of the great Teachers and Holy Ones, the Heroes and Heroines, both from this life and realm, and those from other realms. We recognise that some of these great ones have been perceived as “gods” and “goddesses” by other traditions, and have no qualms with that. Whether such beings are “real” or metaphors makes no difference either, since the ultimate reality of all phenomena is inherent emptiness.

We do not recognise nor affirm the existence of a “creator” or supreme god or goddess, since the purpose of our spiritual practice is to alleviate suffering, and such notions do nothing to alleviate suffering or realise enlightenment. We do not feel compelled to argue for or against the existence of such beings, simply finding such notions to be less than useful for our own personal spiritual journeys. Since everything is created in our minds, it is possible that some being could create an entire universe in their minds, and trapped by ego and delusion, imagine that they are “in charge” of the entire cosmos. Such possibilities are not our concern. (we have our hands full with gaining control over our own delusions and ego-minds!)

We’re Simply Not Evangelical…

Our purpose as an intentional spiritual community is to provide a safe space in which like-minded people can come together to work toward eliminating suffering for all sentient beings. We have no recruitment agendas. Therefore, we don’t go trying to make converts, because we fundamentally have no use for religion itself. Therefore, there is nothing to convert to!

If someone is part of a particular religious tradition, and wishes to be part of our intentional community, they are welcome to do so. We don’t ask that they give up any religious affiliations. We simply require that no one ever try to convert, persuade or influence anyone else to join, leave or otherwise become part of any religion or religious group.

So maybe we’re Buddhist in your opinion. Maybe not. Maybe we’re Catholic in your opinion. Maybe not.

From my perspective, none of it matters. I am a contemplative monk. And my spiritual path is guided by the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ. But I choose no labels… no distinctions… no titles.

When my students were arguing for the right to refer to me as their lama, I cleverly suggested that they simply call me Khenpo (abbot) or Dharmacharya. The reason was that Dharmacharya, when written in Sanskrit can either mean “teacher of the Dharma” (Dharma Acharya) or “one who lives according to the Dharma” (Dharma charya). At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter… because if you do one, you do the other.

Taking my lead from my Spiritual Father, His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and from my Satguru Sri Neem Karoli Baba Santa Maharaj, I profess no religion but compassion… I recognise no god but love… and I follow no path but service to others.

Namasté

dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda

_____________________________________________

“Chenrezig, Treasure of Objectless Compassion;
Manjushri, Lord of Stainless Wisdom;
Vajrapani, Destroyer of all adversarial forces;
O Je Tsong Khapa – Losang Drakpa —
Crown Jewel of the Sages of the Land of Snows,
Humbly at Your Lotus Feet I ask your blessing.”

_____________________________________________

Drawing on the essential teachings of the great spiritual teachers, philosophers and freethinkers throughout time, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (retired Archbishop Francis-Maria Salvato, O.C.) has been regarded as a provocative, revolutionary “voice of reason” within the field of religion and spirituality, since 1983. Having the distinction of being one of the few openly non-theistic, openly-gay and post-denominational thinkers ever to serve as Bishop-Exarch and spiritual leader of the autocephalic Eastern Catholic Franciscans in North America, Gurudas is the author of more than 600 articles, eight books and currently serves as the spiritual advisor for a non-theistic, intentional spiritual community, The Spiritus Project. He can be reached at: http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, His Eminence Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda (The Most Reverend Dr. F. Francis-Maria G. Salvato, M.Sc., O.C.). All rights reserved. This material may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire copyright including contact information remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

This week’s question, from Skanda in Atlanta, GA:

“Namaste, Khenpo! I am curious about something you’ve often said. You speak of the importance of non-attachment, and yet you left the monastery and ashram life to teach within the world itself. You are in a relationship, you work 12-18 hours a day at your business, in addition to all of the work you do teaching and writing, and you encourage others to join you in your work feeding the homeless and poor. I don’t understand how that is a life of detachment, when it seems to be preoccupied with the world itself. I mean no disrespect, but have been thinking about entering the monastic life in order to focus on my spirituality, so I wondered why you would ever have left.”

Thanks for taking the time to ask such a sincere question, Skanda, and know that there could be no offense taken!

There are some concepts which I believe sometime suffer the ill-effects of the subtle differences between the original languages of the Great Teachers and the Western vernacular. The English language employs so many layers of meaning and use to certain words, that we can frequently misunderstand what was originally meant. We see this in studying the Buddha Dharma, Sanatana Dharma and Dharma of the Christ especially. Such words as “non-attachment”, “emptiness”, “at hand” and even references to divinity are among the most often misunderstood and mistranslated.

You are correct in your assessment that my path is a path of non-attachment, and I will spend every day of my life working on that path, since attachments seem to arise and challenge the path daily. I will admit that it was easier to avoid the circumstances that led to attachment, when I lived within the structure of a monastery or ashram life. And at the time, that was the right place for me to be.

Realise too, however, that non-attachment does not mean apathy or indifference. The indifferent heart is not “unattached” at all. In fact, indifference only arises from the ego-mind. Those who take living in a monastery or ashram seriously are often among the most compassionate, socially-concerned, and engaged individuals I know. The commitment to become non-attached is often referred to as a vow of “detachment”, but we must understand what it is that one is choosing (or vowing themselves) to become detached from.

One ought not seek detachment from others. That would be unhealthy, unreasonable and selfish. Instead, one seeks detachment from the possessiveness that exists within our ego-minds.

I would prefer to live my life in the rhythms of that monastery that we had to leave so many years ago. It was indeed liberating to be able to focus 100% of our efforts each day to feeding and caring for the sick, hungry and marginalised… to teach my monks and nuns about the Dharma… to be unconcerned with the minutia of paying the rent or buying food, etc. And it is because of the good I know that came of such things that I am committed to being able to do that again.

But non-attachment doesn’t absolve one of the real responsibilities in life. For example, there is an ashram where many of my spiritual sisters and brothers live, where the residents pay almost twice as much for rent and food than I currently exist on. I wanted to live there at one time, but simply could not afford to do so. These folks work and work hard in the world, and yet they are every bit as enmeshed in the life of bhaktis, sanyassin, and monks as in any other cloistered monastery.

Right now, because we do not have the benefit of benefactors, I work 18 hours a day to sustain the work we do, and hopefully move us closer to the day when we can return to that simpler life. But I do not personally take any of the money that is earned for me selfishly, and am not attached to the money as a possession. Sometimes, I think that working 18 hours a day has been better for me, because it challenges me more intensely to be unattached.

And yes, I am in a committed relationship, and that will be the case for as long as that is mutually agreed upon as being healthy and affirming for both of us. Again, there is no attachment, because I share myself wholly with him, without expecting anything in return, and he does the same thing. We don’t “own” one another, and don’t subscribe to the societal ideologies of “marriage”, “monogamy”, or any other possessive concepts. We are two people, who share a special mutual love and companionship, who have chosen to journey along this road together, and who may well have done so in previous lives.

As for the insistence I have that our Order feed the poor and homeless, work to care for the sick and dying, and be engaged in social justice, the teaching of the Christ and the Buddha compel me to believe that a life without those engagements would be a life wasted.

“Whatsoever you do to the least of these,” Rabbi Jesus taught, “you do for me.”

In the Vimalkirti Sutra, the Buddha is said to have taught the importance of caring for the temporal needs of others, before trying to help them with their spiritual journey. Jesus surely understood this, as we recall from the story of feeding the multitudes and making sure the wedding guests had enough wine. Buddha is said to have taught:

“He makes his body into food and drink, first relieving hunger and thirst, then teaching people the truth. Where there are those in poverty and need, he comes with unending supplies, allowing them to encourage and lead others.”

Vimalakirti Sutra 8

The playwright Bertolt Brecht simplified this idea, suggesting, “First grub, then ethics.” In other words, until we’ve met the real needs of the body – including our own – the ideas and concepts of spiritual truth will ring hollow. This is because spirituality without compassion is useless. A belief in gods and goddesses without a foundation in compassion and service are little more than superstition.

I’d like to think that over the past ten years, the difficult circumstances of being forced to live outside the familiar monastic rhythm has enabled me to reach people I would never have reached before.

There might be a benefactor or benefactors out there who believe in what we are doing enough to make it possible for us to do that without the struggle and 18 hour days… I’d like to think that is possible… but I won’t sit around and wait for it.

Some will surely criticise me for being too unorthodox. That’s OK. Others will criticise me for holding those in positions of spiritual “authority” accountable to those they serve. That’s OK too. In the end, what will matter most is whether or not I served with compassion and inspired others to do the same.

Regarding your discernment process, Skanda, sit quietly and follow the voice within your heart. If you feel that you are called to life in a monastery or ashram, follow your heart and see where the journey takes you. Remember, however, that the advice of the Buddha is to follow the teaching, not the teacher. Don’t get caught up in “guru worship”, but instead, maintain a grateful heart to the teacher for leading you to discover that which already exists within you.

I will remember you in our liturgies and pujas, and send you my love!

Namasté!

– dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda

Follow me on Twitter  |  Visit DharmadudeUnplugged

Quite often, I receive emails or messages through the blogs, in which folks ask me to define Buddhism, and to explain why I “chose” Buddhism as my religion.

My religion is compassion. Nothing else. I draw from the spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism, the Benedictine spirituality of the Camaldolese, the simplicity of the Franciscan charism and the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ… but the religion is compassion.

I tell people that Buddhism is a way of life, just as I believe that one who follows the authentic message of Rav Yeshua (Rabbi Jesus) would experience that as a way of life, not a religion either. Both of these approaches to life can be more appropriately linked to the meaning of the word “philosophy” — which comes from the Greek words “philos” (love) and “sophia” (wisdom). The Dharma is a rootedness or love for wisdom (clear sight).

It’s not something that can be “overly thought out”. Wisdom isn’t intelligence. It’s not about thinking. Through the development of wisdom, we learn to see things more clearly, and thus our intelligence is increased, but only as a side-effect. The objective is awakening. The Dharma of the Buddha and the Dharma or Way of the Christ is about nothing else.

The Noble Eightfold Path is about perfecting one’s character from within. As that occurs, it give rise to compassion, love, equanimity and altruistic joy. Where these things exist, and as they increase, suffering from resentment, unhappiness, delusion and blame naturally decrease. And our grasping for “answers” becomes less prevalent, since the simplicity of it all begins to “dawn” on us.

Speaking about our obsession with figuring things out, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama writes, “Human intelligence is the source of our problems. But it would be foolish to think that the solution is to reduce intelligence. There is only one way out; we must not let our intelligence be guided by negative and harmful emotions. It must be guided only by proper and positive motivation if it is to become marvelously constructive.”

Once again, we see that it is not so much our thoughts, but that we allow our thoughts and perceptions to be coloured and influenced by our emotions and ego, which cause us to suffer. These emotions will not cease to arise, because they are part of the human experience. However, with mindfulness, we learn to recognise them as they arise, and gradually, accept them for what they are… reducing their control and influence, until they can simply be recognised as “thought”… and let go.

This is the purpose of the practice. This is the Dharma. And its outward expression is compassion, service, forgiveness and joy.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

This week’s question: “I understand the idea that attachment is the source of suffering, and I know that I have attachments. I do know that it’s important to become free of attachments, but cannot seem to tackle that problem. The more things I try to let go of, the more attachments I seem to find or replace them with. Thank you for another year of dharma teaching, Khenpo!”

Peace! You may find that you are closer to the answer than you realise, my friend. Attachment arises out of delusional thinking. When we experience attachment, it is always because we’ve lost sight of the true nature of all phenomena.

All phenomena are impermanent. Those things which are impermanent are also ultimately insubstantial, and therefore, incapable of helping us to avoid pain or attain happiness.

Let’s look at an example of this, before I share with you the way to reduce your experience of attachments:

This afternoon, our landlady reminded us that we are late with the rent. We also received the second cut-off notice from the electric company. Those two experiences gave rise to emotions of unrest, agitation and fear. None of those emotions gave us any solution to “real question” — how we were going to come up with $300 immediately — but the ego-mind didn’t care about solutions… it was all about fear.

The fear gave rise to grasping and longing: I found myself considering letting the urgent medical needs to get the surgery on my arm and resolve the neurological issues that are creating so much pain and functional problems, and simply return to work. Then I recognised emotions of agitation that certain folks, who literally waste hundreds of dollars on trivial entertainment, toys and alcohol each month, have never once offered to help us, despite their constant emails encouraging me to “keep helping the world with my teaching”. And finally, my mind settled on “wishing” we could have gotten that grant to rebuild the monastery. The mind settled on the idea that what we needed was a “house”.

But what I perceive as a “house” is an impermanent phenomenon. I imagine it is a house, but it is really an “effect” of the interdependent relationship of nails, wood, drywall, wiring, appliances, pipes, and so forth.

An even closer consideration recognises that what I perceived as wood, is actually an impermanent phenomenon arising out of the interdependent relationship between sunlight, water, soil and a seedling, which produced a tree.

Now, the question is whether any of those things, or the combination thereof, are capable of giving me happiness… or causing me pain. And the answer will always ultimately be “no”.

If we consider that everything we experience — things, people, emotions situations, religion, status — everything — arises from a complex interplay of impermanent causes and conditions, we discover that there is no real substance… nothing to desire, nothing to fear, nothing to resent, nothing to grasp. When we are mindful of the insubtantiality of phenomena, it is much more difficult for attachments to arise.

As we begin to see more and more of our experiences as the result of interdependent causation, less and less will appeal to us as some sort of panacea.

Therefore, I suggest that you have actually made good progress, because you recognise that you have attachments. That awareness will enable you identify and hone-in on one of those particular attachments, and begin looking at the attachments themselves, and deconstruct them. As we look more deeply and honestly at the interdependent causes and conditions from which those “things” take their illusory appearance, we also begin to notice the attachment dissolve.

Each day, I try to make up my mind to simply be aware of the thoughts that come through my mind. I know that some of those thoughts will be thoughts of attachment, delusion, anger and fear. And I welcome those thoughts… I don’t want to get rid of them at all! They are opportunities for personal and spiritual growth!

When they arise, I strive to turn my awareness inward, and “deconstruct” the illusion. Once I have, I don’t even have to “work” at “letting go” of it. It dissolves on its own. And there is an indescribable sensation that accompanies that process. I won’t even attempt to put it into words. You’ll know it, as it occurs.

Congratulations on your willingness to undertake your journey from such an honest and vulnerable place, my friend! And may that journey contribute richly to he elimination of suffering in your life and the lives of others.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda

http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.