So this is something that just blew my mind in the ‘Brick in the wall’ thread. Clearly Bodhinyana is not doing nearly as well as I thought. Where is the leadership? Where is the training in normal decent values?
I don’t have daughters (or sons) @laurence , but if I did and they were at school, playing something like ‘Bhikkhunis and Bhikkhus’ and these were the behaviours displayed, I would take them out of that school until they had sorted the problem, let alone encourage the children into actually joining a monastic sangha that allowed this sort of behaviour. What sort of messages is this sending to young men and women, boys and girls? Please senior monastics, get a grip - the junior monks (I presume it’s just the junior monks) are letting you down and undermining all of your good work.
Stu, you might be overreaching a bit here. I’ve not been to Bodhinyana, but I’ve met Ajahn Brahm. I admire him and like him (from my brief interaction with him) quite a bit. He’s a multifaceted character, and much more than the jovial speaker that you might see on youtube talks. My impression is that he has, despite his energy, an impossible job and a grueling personal schedule. There’s just no way that he alone can manage the behaviors of individual monks at Bodhinyana.
My own two cents comes from living for a short time as a samanera in a Thai wat, and having spent time in some American wats. In any monastic community, you’re going to find good and caring leaders, and for the most part, some very cool and excellent people. But, you’re also going to find some men that are awkward and even a bit intolerable. It may be that a small percentage of men that gravitate toward ordaining may have left lay life due to a lack of ability to function well socially, and to get along with others. Some may have insecurities or issues relating to women generally, before ordaining.
My own sense is that many of the very cool and excellent monastics that we know here at SC ( Vens. Sujato, Brahmali, Vimala, et al to name just a few) would be, in lay life, very cool, very friendly, mindful, and a pleasure to hang out with, and successful in, for example, academics or in a high level vocation. But not all of the monks that ordain are going to be that way. It seems to me whether it’s Bodhinyana, or any other wat, there are going to be various behaviors and personalities that one would encounter in any serious community of people. The leadership can do its best to set a template and example for behavior, but it seems there will always be some monks that will be unpleasant characters. Such is life in any large community of disparate people.
I believe that the problems highlighted in your comment are valid reasons for concern. They are sufficiently disturbing to consider radical surgery in order to save the patient. Ayya Khema taught: ‘recognition, no blame, change’ as a formula for wise and progressive practice. The formula is not: ‘recognition, no blame, no change’.
There is an elephant in the room and its squashing people - let’s get real about it - what is there to lose that’s worth keeping when it comes to these discriminatory rules and sexist forms of etiquette? It really looks like a disconcerting fear of change even if it is for the best of reasons. I thought impermanence was one of the 3 characteristics of existence?
Trust in the good and out with the rest!
Give people something that is worth believing in and practicing without reservations and Buddhism will become an important and ‘relevant’ force for ‘positive’ change in these troubled times. A time where positive change is not a luxury but an absolute necessity.
We can lead by example, that is what happens in the living Dhamma.
The modern world with its terrible problems will have a beautiful example of how to embrace positive change from the very source it is meant to come from. The Dhamma is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and, beautiful in the end. This is how human beings can know and recognise it.
So the idea is: let’s make the training fit the person not, let’s provide an opportunity for people to lift themselves to meet the living Dhamma, the liberating Dhamma, the ‘beautiful’ Dhamma. The only one that transforms the .
And still, after all of this, the sexist rules and etiquette are still going to be there, looming like a dark cloud hanging over all of us. It’s time to step out into a new and liberating light of understanding. We have ‘nothing’ to fear!
This thread is wonderful because it demonstrates precisely what I’m cautioning against and worried about, when negative generalisations are being made based on the problematic statements of the few. Unfortunately these negative generalisations tend to engulf those who really care and who are humbly and silently doing good work and not just talking or complaining and condemning.
This is not something I am speculating about, but rather I come across in experience frequently, and such generalisations are already one of the foremost reasons, I believe, in making conservatives or traditionalalists horrified of change and of those seeking it (to the extent that arouses sympathy for them!). One person speaks recklessly or aggressively in favour of reform, the behaviour becomes emphasised in the perception of certain listeners, it becomes generalised as a behaviour associated with change and reform, and finally becomes associated with the very idea of reform itself (as an ignoble, anariya, worldly, and destructive thing).
You see, it’s complex, and many people, with good intentions, are never able to see how at least some of the trouble commences right from their own limitations, seeking the welfare of others (bhikkhunis for example) yet effectively end up only harming them and harming those who are helping them in reality rather than just online. Indeed it is not a simplistic Walt Disney cartoon where good and evil are so clearly and distinctly defined. Nothing is that simplistic!
[General note]:
Please, Venerable Ajahn Brahm is not elected by anyone to do what the electors wish; the efforts he makes are completely optional, voluntary, and up to his will and desire (and he paid dearly for them!). He doesn’t owe it to anyone to do anything; he is a renunciate monk and have every right to disappear forever from all of us tomorrow if he so wishes. It is exceedingly conceited and ungrateful, to criticise him for doing such a voluntary thing according to his own wisdom and satisfaction rather than according to those of others. Alas!
That’s fine, all the best with your practice and point of view. I wasn’t expecting company!
You said: “you might be missing that this the discussion here doesn’t seem to be about you personally. It is your proposals. Many people involved in this issue for a long time (including monastics) are sharing their extensive experience with regard to your proposals.”
I agree, your keen observations seem fairly obvious - keep up the good work!
May you be well and happy, full of peace, Dhamma bliss and freedom.
General note:
I have been a student of ‘Ajahn Brahm’s’ teachings since 1988. One of his favourite quotes from ‘B. Franklin’ goes something like this: If everybody is thinking the same, then, nobody is thinking???
I love Ajahn Brahm and I follow his wise and heartfelt advice. I would encourage you to pay close attention to what he generously shares with us for which we are grateful.
Ajahn Brahm should never feel obliged to take on anything that is against his excellent grasp of the teachings. He would never seek to impose his views on others. Being his attentive student - as I have been for 3 decades - neither would I. For reasons unknown, this important point seems to be difficult to grasp?
I am very happy to hear what you believe to be true and good Dhamma. However, if you want to share your welcome views and perspective, please do this in the ‘first person’. It’s best to avoid inserting your own understanding into the discussion while implying they are the views of others - IMO.
Do you agree or would you like me to pretend that your views on this topic are actually my own and then disagree with you?
Those who choose to endorse this strategy in order to feel better should think twice! As Buddhists, we need to be completely honest about what we believe and not seek to put words in other people’s mouths in order to make a point.
We should not cast aspersions on our fellow mittas as we all have the best intentions. This does not mean we should not hold each other accountable for what we have to say and it does not mean that we should not question each other - deeply - even if this may make us feel uneasy sometimes.
I hope this isn’t confusing?
Question: is your last comment unrelated to the earlier comments made in this thread - like the one before?
Sorry for being personal in my comment, but I think you should really really practice your Right Speech alongside your comendable struggle for gender equality in the Sangha.
Sounds great so long as it is not to self-congratulatory. We wouldn’t want to give a false impression. People should be enabled to make up their own minds based on the track record, future prospects and, abject failures.
I think you might be talking about right-blogging not right-speech?
When I practice ‘right speech’ as a commited Buddhist, I take several variables into consideration. There may be more to it than that which contacts the mind-door via the ear-door (and how we ‘react’ to that)?
In order to understand the Dhamma we need to look ‘below/underneath’ the surface- appearance or, the hedonic-tone of what is being shared?
Naturally, when we ‘hear’ divergent perspectives on something as precious as the Sangha, we may ‘feel’ all sorts of challenging emotions and experience difficult mind-states.
Truthfulness is also an important aspect of right speech - don’t you think? Sometimes complaints are justified, it’s usually pretty easy to recognise when somebody goes out of their way to offend. I have never had much trouble recognising this akusala-intent.
It is also the case that complaint can be used as a rhetorical device to shut-down meaningful Dhamma discussion.
Please allow the moderators to perform their necessary role in making these kinds of observations.
This does not mean that I am not sorry you feel the way you do about what you hear and disagree with - for whatever reason.
Please forgive any offence I may have caused as, in all honesty, this was never my intention. Somehow, we need to learn how to accommodate different perspectives on our shared journey together - without losing our equilibrium.
There is nothing that anyone could say to me that would cause me ‘personal’ offense. That does not mean I don’t get sad about the way people react.
For me, if people are unfortunate enough to behave offensively it remains with them. I refuse to let others control my mind as that leads to many problems - best avoided.
As well you know, we have had cause to intervene in each of the threads you’ve started of this nature, we’ve repeatedly highlighted to you the exact point that Vstakan has brought up - you ignored us, a lot.
I have always responded positively to the friendly reminders of moderators and thanked them for their guidance. If the current moderator is concerned about what I have written in this thread please point out where the problem has arisen and I will be happy - as per usual - to do as requested. As I have not received any feedback of this nature and, as I have not intended to do the wrong thing, I have continued to respond in the thread. What else was I meant to do other than to assume everything was Ok - so far so good? I did not accuse anyone of wrong-speech when others were insinuating I was slandering my teacher. How would the moderators respond if I had said as much?
I started a number of threads earlier on in this forum where I received no guidance from moderators and many likes for my effort. However, when there is a topic being discussed when my perspective has differed from the consensus view this situation seems to arise. Is this a coincidence?
I trust all of that seems like a fair and reasonable representation to you. From my point of view, I’d put things very differently, but I’m not going to waste more life getting into a slippery argument with you - as far as I can tell, mostly what you want to do here is argue (I can’t say how glad I would be to be shown wrong in this) and you strike me as being very good at it. On the more happy side, I also understand you’re very good at crocheting, too.
Dear Aminah, it is not that I like arguing it’s just the case that I have a different take on many topics that we all care about. There is no offence intended!
I fully trust your good intentions, but maybe it’s worth seriously considering the various communication styles available for exploring of those differences is in a constructive, respectful tone that will likely lead to mutual benefit and mutual growth in understanding.
Dear Aminah, I do try and if I was a master communicator like the Buddha then I would be better equipped to deal with the many and varied mittas who find my views disagreeable - let alone my communication skills.
Some of what takes place in this dynamic can be explained in a different way. All I am able to do is explain my perspective as best I can and then, respond to the barrage of objections one by one.
Even if I was a Sunday-school teacher, the cumulative effect of repeated objections to my perspectives - that often differ from the consensus view - will lead to a situation where my dialogue partners may start to get irritated.
Some of the mittas in this process simply disagree and others strongly disagree. And this is the general pattern that unfolds when it comes to this form of communication.
I am not saying I don’t contribute to the tensions as they develop but I am not the only one engaged in the process.
As an experiment, you could adopt an unpopular position on a topic we all have an interest in and, do your level best to effectively explain and justify your position and find out what happens?
Occasional passing comments are easier to negotiate but explaining an entirely different position on a topic in the face of many and varied objections is a bit more challenging - IMO.
I like Ajahn Brahm too. He’s great. I first met him when I was working at the Buddhist Society in London some 10 – 15 years ago. I was and I remain very impressed with the man. Since then I have met him on around 7 to 10 occasions when he has visited the UK – he used to come to visit his mum in London every year before she died. I have worked on projects for him. Here is a picture of an informal chat that we had when we invited him to the UK for a fund-raising tour in aid of the Anukampa Bhikkhuni Project a couple of years ago (“Never miss an opportunity to promote the ABP Stu!” - https://anukampaproject.org/).
In that picture we are talking about the editing of one of his books. I am representing a group of international lay disciples with their concerns that the editing had lost Ajahn’s ‘voice’. Ajahn took on board the concerns from his lay disciples and the editing got changed before publication. Change happens.
Back in 2010 when there was great opposition in the UK from many parts of the Theravada community, I supported Ajahn Brahm by encouraging the Buddhist Society and other UK groups to make sure that there was a platform available in the UK for Ajahn to teach.
I say this just to show you that I have a little more exposure to Ajahn Brahm than just the “jovial speaker that you might see on YouTube talks”, and I have supported his activities for a number of years and wish to continue to support them into the future. I hope this gives some context to my comments.
Agreed. And I’m not asking him to personally manage the behaviours of individual monks at Bodhinyana. That’s not how leadership works. You don’t have to do everything yourself, you set the tone and make it known that certain behaviours are unacceptable. When things go wrong (as seems to be the case here) you supply extra training and monitor the situation. I know this because, in a previous incarnation in this life, I managed a department of around 70 individuals in a large corporation. No way could I personally manage the behaviour of my department, but I could specify what was acceptable and what was not and put in place systems where the team managed themselves.
It sounds like you know me!
These days, now that I’m officially retired, I often work with packs of dogs – all rescue dogs. Now when we get a potential new member who may join the pack, we can test them out. During this period they may display certain aversive behaviours to other dogs in the pack. We have two choices here, we can either say “no” to the new dog joining the pack, or if we see potential, then we can give them a bit of special training so they can start to work with the pack instead of against it. One way we do this is using techniques borrowed from psychology, such as systematic ‘desensitization’ or ‘flooding’. If the dog has aversion to being around other dogs then we might get the dog to walk parallel to another dog, but at quite some distance, feeding them treats for behaving well. Then we can gradually narrow the gap until the dog is behaving in a responsible way towards the other dog. At that point the dog can start to be integrated into the pack and then they really start to enjoy life with a communal sense of purpose.
If a bhikkhu cannot overcome their aversion to being in the presence of a bhikkhuni, then what hope of overcoming greed, hatred and delusion? Let’s help these bhikkhus by giving them some basic training to get them to a stage where they can at least sit at ease with other members of the pack and behave like normal decent human beings. This is all that I’m calling for here Michael. Now I could’ve contacted Ajahn Brahm directly regarding this, but as you state he has a gruelling personal schedule and I don’t wish to add to that. I have publically directed my comments to Ajahn Sujato (who I don’t know except for brief chats online) simply because he is a senior monastic with ties to Bodhinyana engaging with this thread. I’m not expecting anything to happen, because, well, as Ajahn Brahm suggests: samsara is rotten to the core. But I would also love to be pleasantly surprised.
This seems to be suggesting that ‘characters’ are immutable and the rest of us just have to put up with them, or leave the pack (like the bhikkhunis who Ayya Vimala cites as having left robes recently). I do not concede that ‘characters’ are immutable. ‘Characters’ can and do change and we can cultivate a healthy monastic sangha, where the brothers are showing respect to their sisters and not bullying them out of the sangha.
Stu, I don’t have time at the moment to fully respond (positively) to your comments. Needless to say, it’s wonderful that you have had these opportunities first hand to work with Ajahn Brahm, and anumodana for the good work that you do, and have done.
One great thing about SC…it’s online, but even with these cordial exchanges, we all get to know each other (fr the most part) better and come to an appreciation of others’ practices, personal histories, and personalities. I’m grateful for your kind and very thoughtful response today.
( And, hey! You’re supposed to be sitting on the floor! That’s a Thai thing…)
.
- 
