Celibacy and Buddhism - Suvanna Cullen (and others)

Celibacy and Buddhism Bits and bobs on sex and the divine life edited and with an introduction by

Suvanna Cullen

What we long for is the love that never fails.

This is perhaps our deepest heart wish. Conditioned or fabricated love always fails. That’s its nature.

What doesn’t fail is what’s beyond conditions: the True Refuge, the essence of the Three Jewels, Bodhi – the awakened mind/heart.

But can this come into our practice (other than as a distant ideal)? It can – to the extent that we open up to it and see through ... dualistic vision. Even in terms of our ordinary experience, the allpervading compassionate nature is here-now as sensitivity. We are sensitive – sensitivity is our nature.

This is why we can experience both pleasure and suffering.

Our longing for unconditional and unfailing love is something very deep within us and at root it is genuine (not delusive). It’s a longing to return to the original sensitivity of our nature outside of dualistic distinctions. This longing is something we can get all neurotic about, or we can cherish it as the seed of ... the Awakening Heart/Mind.

Tejananda

First published in July 2013

by Suvanna Cullen © Suvanna Cullen Available from www.lulu.com ISBN 978-1-291-47807-5

Contents Preface Introduction Sangharakshita’s Writings and Seminars What is a Monk? What is an Anagarika?

Spiritual Friendship The Third Precept Lifestyle is Secondary – But Not Unimportant Transcending Gender The Need for Unpolarized People in the Order Conditions for Movement Towards Greater Celibacy Like a Caterpillar Passing from Leaf to Leaf The Best Age for Chastity?

Fifteen Points for Order Members Reflections on Sexuality Joy

4 5

9 13 14 17 17 18 19 21 24 26 27 28

Articles by Order members Renunciation is a Central Buddhist Teaching by Manjuvajra Sexual Evolution by Dhammadinna Brahmacarya and the Future of the Western Buddhist Order by Kamalashila To Have and Have Not: Sex, Celibacy and Spiritual Practice by Suvarnaprabha Article about an Anagarika Ceremony

29 34 40 54 64

The Community of Anagarikas: Personal Reports by Order Members How to Formally Become an Anagarika Miscellaneous Resources Questions for Reflection and Discussion Further Reading and Resources Glossary Index

67 76 79 84 85 86 87

Preface The information in this book is intended for anyone interested in making celibacy (brahmacarya) a conscious part of his or her Buddhist practice. Many sections may be especially relevant for those involved with the Triratna Buddhist Order (formerly known as the Western Buddhist Order).

The project emerged out of my quest for information about becoming an anagarika, our Order’s simplified version of monastic vows. I wondered: What does it mean exactly? What are the rules? Who decides?

The result has been to pull together the information that is currently available. However numerous its faults, I hope you will find it useful. And I hope there will be future editions in which more people will be willing to share their personal experience, however revealing or embarrassing, for the benefit of beings.

Many thanks to the Order members whose writings are reprinted here, and to Sangharakshita, who created our wonderful Buddhist Order.

May your practice of brahmacarya (and everyone’s got one!) be non-neurotic and enjoyable for you, and bear fruit for all.

Suvarnaprabha Boulder Creek, California January 2, 2010

4

Introduction There is no doubt that as human beings we are wired to some degree to seek pleasure. A popular misconception of Buddhism says that we are supposed to try to stop, or cut ourselves off from, this natural process. In truth, the Buddha’s teaching asks us not to reject experience out of aversion but rather, to look closely at it and directly experience what it really is. (Which is, of course, not as easy as it sounds, or at least takes some practice!) We may find that we tend to look for pleasure, if not in “all the wrong places,” then at least in many places where it does not reside. As Buddhists exploring the territory of happiness and suffering, meditation and craving, looking at our behavior, views and habits in the realm of sex will probably be an important part of our investigation. Sex is an enormous, fascinating and all-pervasive feature of human culture, around which there is joy and love, connection and fulfillment, as well as heartache, intoxication, opinionatedness, addiction, and violence.

The Buddha himself and his chief disciples were celibate. (Technically speaking, celibacy means unmarried.

Chastity means avoiding all sexual activity. However, in common usage and for our present purpose, celibacy and chastity are used interchangeably to mean lack of sexual activity.) Though today many Buddhist monastics are celibate, there are also many ‘monks’ who aren’t, either because they have broken the rules of the vinaya or monastic code, or because their particular priestly Order at some point abandoned the rule of celibacy. Our Order (the Triratna Buddhist Order, formerly known as the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order) does not require a celibate or any other particular lifestyle, but rather emphasizes the primacy of commitment to, and faith in, Buddhist ideals.

More personally, having grown up in a sexually liberal culture and period of time (Southern California in the 1970s), my background did not teach me to be fully aware of the hazards of sex, such as disease, unhealthy, immature dependency, pregnancy, and emotional pain. At some point however I did see how much energy I was pouring into my sexual relationships, and how much I suffered when they ended or somehow went wrong, as they always, eventually, did. My interest in brahmacarya (celibacy) is really about being ready to shift, or continue shifting, my energies into areas of life that I find satisfying. Practically speaking, I also have had a much weaker sex drive since I’ve been in my 40s, which makes doing this much easier and more straightforward than it would have been in the past. I do not see practicing brahmacarya as a rejection of anything or a judgment or even a comment on anyone else’s way of life. Wanting to be in a relationship is most understandable! Not wanting to be in one, wanting to focus one’s energies more elsewhere, also makes sense.

Many of us, in line with a culture under the influence of modern psychology, feel we ought to keep working 5

on our sexual relationships until we make something work, including working on ways to increase the libido when it wanes, but Buddhism does not necessarily support this view, or at least not as the only possible response. According to Buddhism, and this is quite different from our modern ethic (at least in California), one does not have to have sex to be healthy and sane. In fact there is probably more evidence, in Theravadin Buddhism anyway, to the contrary. I have always been grateful for this different point of view on things. I’ve been in sexual relationships for thousands of years, and feel it is time for me to do something else. (At least this is how I have felt for a couple of years.)

It seems to me that practicing celibacy may be similar to being a vegetarian. Vegetarians are sometimes thought of as fundamentalist or intolerant, or just plain weird. And, depending on where you live and what you like, not eating meat can be a discipline, at least in the sense that at any given restaurant there may not be a single thing, or a single thing that you want, on the menu. So being in this situation, if you are to keep it up, you have to put in some effort, some persistence. And people who eat meat can feel that vegetarians are somehow a threat, or an insult, to their lifestyle. Even among vegetarians, vegans (those who do not eat or use any animal products such as eggs or leather) can be seen as extremist.

The point is that the effort it takes to stay vegetarian in a meat-eating culture may appear as fanaticism to people who do not understand and/or have no wish to understand the reasons for it. It may appear as if you have stepped out of your own culture. And maybe the conviction that one is doing the right thing is so strong that one does become intolerant. You may be motivated by a true empathy and love for animals, a more theoretical commitment to not taking life, or maybe you just refuse to support the well-documented environmental devastation caused by factory farming. In any case, the result is that you don’t eat what other people eat, what other people relish, even, what other people need to eat in order to feel that they have eaten anything at all. You probably don’t eat what your family eats. You are a mystery, and not in the attractive sense of that term. You may end up inconveniencing or offending someone because of it, possibly someone who already thinks being a vegetarian is ridiculous or incomprehensible.

If we voluntarily do not engage in sexual activity, it seems to me that we find ourselves in a similar situation.

We have stepped out of – rejected – the intrinsic and largely unconscious sexual ethic of our culture.

Obviously this doesn’t mean only the activity of the genitals, but all the behaviors we exhibit before, during and after that are inextricably connected to the sexual act. All the ceremony, the entire structure of social expectation and approval, the financial benefit or detriment, and all the cozy comfort that goes along with it.

It means the drive to have children and to ‘nest’. It means, or it can mean, wanting something from someone, having an acquisitive or objectifying attitude toward them. It can mean love, a particular way of expressing love (and some of us may tell ourselves that’s what our sex drive is). It can mean wanting reassurance or 6

affirmation. There are probably things you are after in the realm of sex that I have not mentioned. In any case, by voluntarily practicing celibacy in the long term we step to some degree outside our culture.

And it is strange that some of us – in order to realize that we are connected to others – disconnect from a common lifestyle to a degree that makes us unrecognizable. I have felt this more acutely in the past, realizing how little money I live on due to working for the Dhamma. I don’t eat meat, and I don’t have sex. What can I possibly share with humanity? Certainly not a meal, a job, a bed, or a vacation! What is left then, what do we share? I hope this book will help us remember the answer to this question, help us get in touch with our true values, and find a way to express them in the way we live our lives.

7

The yogi chooses hardship because it enables him to see how much of his experience is not ‘out there’ but is his ... perception of what’s happening. A comfortable life does not provide this possibility of freedom for the mind.

Sangharakshita, The Yogi’s Joy

Sangharakshita’s Writing and Seminars What is a Monk? What is an Anagarika? from Forty Three Years Ago (1993)

In the course of communicating these reflections on my bhikkhu ordination forty-three years ago, I may have given the impression that I reject monasticism. This is by no means the case. What I reject is the identification of the spiritual life with the monastic life and the monastic life itself with pseudo-monastic formalism, an identification that has the effect of displacing the Act of Going for Refuge from its central and definitive place in the Buddhist life, creating a division between the Monastic Order and the laity, and relegating the latter to the position of second class Buddhists, besides seriously undermining the whole structure of Buddhism, both theoretical and practical. Far from rejecting monasticism, I have a very high regard for it, but as an expression of commitment to the Three Jewels, not as constitutive of that commitment. For the greater part of my own adult life I have lived as a monk, and despite the flaw in my ordination ceremony, and despite the fact that it took me a long time to realize that commitment is primary, lifestyle secondary, I have no regrets. Indeed I rejoice that I could live in this way, regretting only that I was not a better monk. I would like to see a revival of Sutra-style monasticism throughout the Buddhist world. I would like to see more monks (and nuns) within the Western Buddhist Order, twenty-odd members of which already observe the training rule of chastity as anagarikas. But what is monasticism? What is a monk? Before saying anything more about WBO anagarikas I must deal briefly with this question.

A monk is one who is vowed to (a) chastity, (b) fewness of possessions, (c) simplicity of lifestyle, (d) careerlessness, and (e) community living. (a) Chastity. This is what really defines a monk. Whatever other virtues one may possess, if one is not chaste one is not a monk, though it is, of course, possible to practice chastity without being a monk, i.e. without being vowed to chastity or living as a monk in other ways. Thus there can be no such thing as a ‘married monk’, the expression being a contradiction in terms, the more especially as the English word ‘monk’, like its equivalent in other European languages, derives ultimately from the Greek monos, alone. To speak of ‘married Mahayana monks’, as some have done, is quite inaccurate, and highly misleading. The traditional Buddhist term for chastity is brahmacarya (Pali brahmacariya), and the vow or training-rule of chastity is couched, in terms that are grammatically negative, as ‘abstention from non-chastity’. Brahmacarya, sometimes translated as celibacy (really the state of being unmarried, especially as consequent upon the taking of a religious vow of chastity), means a great deal more than abstention from sexual activity. As I have explained elsewhere, 9

brahmacarya means faring, practicing, or living like Brahma, that is, like one of those sublime spiritual beings who, transcending sexual dimorphism, occupy a range of celestial realms correlative to, and accessible from, the dhyanas or states of superconsciousness. Since a Brahma has no gross material body, there is no question of his having possessions, or lifestyle, or career. He moreover lives in company with other Brahmas. Similarly, one who practices brahmacarya or chastity will naturally tend to limit his possessions, to live simply, and to do without a gainful occupation. He will also naturally tend to live as a member of a spiritual community. Thus chastity not only defines the monk but is also the fons et origo of his other vows. (b) Fewness of possessions. According to the Theravadin Vinaya a bhikkhu may possess only eight things: three civaras or ‘yellow robes’, an alms-bowl, a razor, a girdle, a needle, and a water-strainer (the Sarvastivadin Vinaya adds books and a few other items), though he also has a share in the use of the collective property of his monastery such as furniture and buildings. The modern monk will find it difficult to limit his personal possessions to the extent that a bhikkhu is (or was) required to do, especially if he happens to live in the West.

He will also find it difficult to do without money. Detailed legislation in this field is impossible, perhaps even undesirable. In principle the monk should limit his personal possessions to immediate necessities, resisting any temptation to accumulate, hoard, or save for the proverbial rainy day either belongings or money. He will bear in mind the example of the bhikkhus of old, who did not possess an extra robe, and who refused to keep salt from one day to the next. Perhaps he and his brother monks will be able to echo their song: Happy indeed let us live, we who possess nothing.

Let us live feeding on joy, like the gods of sonant light.

Dhammapada, 200 [The abhassara devas or ‘gods of sonant light’ are a class of brahmas.] (c) Simplicity of lifestyle. Traditionally, this is covered by the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth of the ten precepts observed by the samanera or novice monk, relating, respectively, to abstention from untimely meals, from worldly amusements and entertainments, from personal adornment, and from luxurious living conditions. The kind of spirit that pervades these four precepts is sufficiently obvious, and by no means to be regarded as limited to them. A monk living in our modern consumer society will formulate for himself hundreds of new precepts of this type, corresponding to the hundreds of different things he will have to give up if he wants to achieve simplicity of lifestyle. The simplicity of that lifestyle will not, however, be a sordid simplicity. It will be a refined simplicity, reflecting aesthetic as well as ethical and spiritual values, if indeed these can be separated. It will be a simplicity like that of a Greek vase painting or a Japanese ‘Zen garden’ of rocks and raked sand.

10

(d) Careerlessness. A career is ‘a profession or occupation chosen as one’s life work’ (Collins) or ‘way of making a livelihood and advancing oneself ’ (New Oxford). By careerlessness I therefore mean not having a gainful occupation that acts as the focal point of one’s worldly ambitions and is the means by which one supports oneself and one’s family. This is not to say that the monk does not work, or that (as in the Theravada) he will necessarily be dependent on the ‘laity’, i.e. on those who do work. If his monastery is unable to support him he will either work at or from ‘home’ in the way Zen monks do (‘a day of no working is a day of no eating’) or take an outside job of a kind that is not incompatible with his vocation. Should he take an outside job he normally will continue to live in the monastery and continue to be a full member of the community. The monk should never allow the monastic life itself to become a kind of career, as it has in many parts of the Buddhist world, with examinations, grades, titles, and financial incentives. (e) Community living. The monk needs spiritual friends. This is not to suggest that those who are not monks do not need spiritual friends, but only that the monk will probably feel the need for them more acutely.

Spiritual friends are best found, and spiritual friendship is best cultivated, within the context of a spiritual community, that is, a group of people having a common spiritual commitment and living and/or working together in order to help one another strengthen that commitment and give it more effective expression.

Since the monk is one who gives expression to his commitment by vowing himself to chastity and so on, he needs not just spiritual friends but spiritual friends who are similarly vowed, and since spiritual friends are best found, and spiritual friendship is best cultivated, within a spiritual community, he also needs to live and/ or work with other monks. He needs, ideally, to belong to a monastery, or at least to a ‘closed’ residential spiritual community, that is, one that does not admit visitors of the opposite sex.

The reason the monk will probably feel the need for spiritual friends more acutely than those who are not monks is that, vowed as he is to chastity, he has no occasion to experience the emotional warmth and intimacy which, even when they happen to be spiritually committed, are bound up, for those who are not monks, with their sexual relationship or relationships. For such warmth and intimacy he will depend on his spiritual friends, but especially on those who are themselves monks and who, being in the same position, feel the need for spiritual friends no less acutely than he does. Without spiritual friends the monk is in danger of drying up emotionally, as appears to have happened with so many of the Roman Catholic priests who, in recent years, have left the priesthood to get married – not, indeed, for the sake of carnal indulgence so much as for the sake of close human companionship.

The fact that a monk is one who is vowed to chastity, fewness of possessions, simplicity of lifestyle, careerlessness, and community living does not mean that he is vowed only to these things. He is a Buddhist, and as a Buddhist he also observes the sikkhapadas or rules of training undertaken by all Buddhists regardless 11

of lifestyle, such as abstention from killing living beings, from taking the not-given, and from false, harsh, frivolous, and slanderous speech. Chastity and the rest do not, in fact, constitute a set of additional, specifically ‘monastic’ vows, so much as a more thoroughgoing application of the principles underlying certain of the rules of training observed by the laity, i.e. observed by monks and laity in common. A Buddhist monk, it must be emphasized, is not a monk who happens to be a Buddhist but a Buddhist who happens to be a monk, and as such he has infinitely more in common with a Buddhist who is not a monk than he has with a monk who is not a Buddhist.

This brings me back to the subject of WBO anagarikas. Being a member of the Western Buddhist Order, a WBO anagarika observes the same Ten Precepts as other members of the Order – precepts which they all took when they were ordained. The only difference is that the anagarika observes the Third Precept not in the form of abstention from sexual misconduct (kamesu-micchacara) but in the form of abstention from unchastity (abrahmacarya). This more ‘monastic’ version of the Third Precept is taken some time after ordination (it may be a year or it may be twenty or more years after); it is taken formally, at a special ceremony in the course of which the new anagarika is given either a yellow robe or a yellow kesa, as he (or she) prefers, to replace the white kesa given at the time of ordination. The taking of a vow of chastity does not constitute an additional, higher ordination, and the status of the anagarika within the Order is no different from that of any other Order member. Whether in relation to one another or in relation to Mitras and Friends, all Order members have the same status, which is to say, they have no status, the concept of status being one that is meaningless from the spiritual point of view.

In the Buddhist world, however, and especially in the Theravadin part of that world, the (celibate) monk definitely does have status. He has a very high socioreligious status indeed, higher than that of even the most eminent layman. Consequently those who are desirous of status, but who are doubtful of their ability to achieve it by ordinary means, may be tempted to become monks, even though they do not really want to abstain from sexual activity. For them such abstention is the price that has to be paid for (monastic) status, just as for their counterparts in the Roman Catholic priesthood celibacy is ‘part of the deal’. Since in the Western Buddhist Order no such status attaches to anagarikahood, inasmuch as the taking of the vow of chastity does not constitute an additional, higher ordination, there can be no question of an Order member being tempted to take a vow of chastity for the sake of status. An Order member takes a vow of chastity, and becomes an anagarika, simply in order to deepen his experience of Going for Refuge and to help shift the locus of his being from the kamaloka or world of (sensuous) desire to the rupaloka or world of (archetypal) form, that is, to the Brahma-realms. He takes it, moreover, only after consulting with his spiritual friends and making sure that his living conditions will be conducive to its observance. Thus he is unlikely to break this, the ‘monastic’ version of the Third Precept, in the way that it was broken by so many of my old bhikkhu 12

friends in India, who, while they may not have become monks for the sake of status, certainly were not strongly motivated to abstain from sexual activity.

Though the WBO anagarika takes the vow of chastity he is not vowed to fewness of possessions, simplicity of lifestyle, careerlessness, or community living, and is not, therefore, a monk in the sense in which I define the term. Chastity being the fons et origo of the other vows, however, the anagarika will have a natural tendency to live in the kind of way that is envisaged by these vows, simply because he is practicing chastity. He will have a natural tendency to live as a monk. When I say that I would like to see more monks in the Western Buddhist Order it is the fact that anagarikahood has this tendency that I have in mind, rather than the formal taking, by the individual anagarika, of (monastic) vows other than that of chastity.

Spiritual Friendship

from What is the Sangha? (pages 202-204, 2000) As the Buddha was to say to his disciple and cousin Ananda, ‘Spiritual friendship is the whole of the spiritual life.’ But how are we to take this? We can understand that friendship is important, but the idea that friendship, even spiritual friendship, should be the whole of the spiritual life, does seem hard to swallow. But let us look a little more closely at what is being said here. The Pali word I have translated as ‘spiritual life’ is brahmacariya, which sometimes means celibacy or chastity – that is to say abstention from sexual activity – but in this context it has a much wider meaning. It consists of two parts. Brahma means high, noble, best, sublime, and real; it also means divine, not in the theistic sense but in the sense of the embodiment of the best and noblest qualities and virtues. And cariya means walking, faring, practicing, experiencing, even living.

Hence brahmacariya means something like ‘practicing the best’ or ‘experiencing the ideal’; we could even render it ‘the divine life’, or just ‘spiritual life’, as I have done.

There is a further aspect to the term brahmacariya that brings us to a deeper understanding of what it means in this context. In early Buddhism there is a whole series of terms beginning with brahma, and one of these is brahmaloka, which means the sublime realm, the divine world, or simply the spiritual world in the highest sense. So the brahmacariya or spiritual life is that way of life that leads to the brahmaloka or spiritual world. But how is it able to do this? For the answer, we must turn to yet another early Buddhist text: the Mahagovinda Sutta. Without going into the background to this sutta – it’s a long story – we find in it this very question being asked: ‘How does a mortal reach the immortal brahma world?’ In other words, how can one pass from the transient to the eternal? And the answer given is short and simple. ‘One reaches the brahma world by giving up all possessive thoughts, all thoughts of me and mine.’ In other words, one reaches the 13

brahmaloka by giving up egoism and selfishness, by giving up all sense of ‘I’.

Thus the intimate connection between spiritual friendship and spiritual life starts to come into focus. Spiritual friendship is a training in unselfishness, in egolessness. You share everything with your friend or friends. You speak to them kindly and affectionately, and show concern for their welfare, especially their spiritual welfare.

You treat them in the same way you treat yourself—that is, you treat them as being equal with yourself. You relate to them with an attitude of metta, not according to where the power between you lies. Of course this is very difficult; it goes against the grain, because we are naturally selfish. The development of spiritual friendship is very difficult. Leading the spiritual life is very difficult. Being a Buddhist – a real Buddhist – is very difficult.

We need help.

And we get that help not only from our teachers but also from one another. We can’t be with our spiritual teacher all the time, but we can be with our spiritual friends all the time, or at least much of the time. We can see them regularly, perhaps live with them, perhaps even work with them. If we spend time with spiritual friends in this way, we will get to know them better, and they will get to know us better. We will learn to be more open and honest, we will be brought up against our natural tendency to operate in accordance with the power mode. If we have spiritual friend, they will try not to relate to us in this way and they will expect us to operate in the love mode as well, to relate to them with metta. Learning to relate to our friends in this way, we will gradually learn to respond to the whole world with metta, with unselfishness. It is in this way that spiritual friendship is indeed the whole of the spiritual life.

The Third Precept

The Principle of Abstention from Sexual Misconduct; or Contentment from The Ten Pillars of Buddhism (1984) It will help us to understand the third precept, especially in its positive form as Contentment, if we can see it within the context of traditional Buddhist cosmology. That cosmology reveals to us what may be described as a three-tiered universe. Mundane existence is divided into three horizontal layers, as it were, the second of which is higher than the first, in the sense of being more refined, positive, blissful, and luminous, and the third higher than the second. These three ‘layers’ are the planes, worlds, or spheres – the terminology varies – of sensuous desire (kama), of archetypal form (rupa), and of no archetypal form (arupa). The plane of sensuous desire comprises (in ascending order) the hell world, the world of hungry ghosts, the world of asuras 14

or anti-gods, the animal world, the human world, and the world of the (lower) gods, from the four great kings (or gods of the four directions of space, as they are also called) up to the gods who control the creations of others. The plane of archetypal form comprises altogether sixteen sub-planes, from the heaven of the gods belonging to the company of Brahma, up to and including the five ‘pure abodes’, which are inhabited by Non-Returners, i.e. those great spiritual beings who have developed transcendental insight to such an extent as to break the five fetters binding them to the plane of sensuous desire, so that they will no more be reborn there. The third plane, the plane of no archetypal form, comprises four sub-planes, all of which are inhabited

by Brahmas, a class of spiritual beings superior even to the gods (though sometimes spoken of as such).

Much could be said about these three planes of conditioned existence. All that concerns us at the moment is the fact that on the planes of archetypal form there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism, i.e. no separation into male and female, the inhabitants of these planes all being what we would call, from the human point of view, androgynous. Sexual dimorphism, or separation into male and female, is found only on the plane of sensuous desire, including, of course, the human world. Since spiritual life consists, in objective or cosmological terms, in a progression from lower to higher planes and worlds, spiritual life also consists in a progression from a state of biological and psychological sexual dimorphism to a state of spiritual androgyny.

Moreover, since a state of sexual dimorphism is a state of polarization, tension, and projection, it is also a state of discontent. The state of spiritual androgyny, on the contrary, is a state of harmony, relaxation, and content.

Observance of the Third Precept, therefore, does not consist simply in abstention from the various wellknown forms of sexual misconduct, but also, and more importantly, in the experience of Contentment, the ‘vertical’ as distinct from the ‘horizontal’ counterpart of such abstention.

In meditation the state of sexual dimorphism is transcended. In meditation one ceases, for the time being, to be either male or female. This is because in meditation, in the sense of samatha-bhavana or ‘development of calm’, one progresses through the dhyanas or states of higher consciousness, as they may be called, and these states of higher consciousness are the subjective, psychological counterparts of the different sub-planes of the planes of archetypal form and no archetypal form. While meditating, in the sense of actually experiencing the dhyanas, one is therefore a deva or Brahma. In terms of the Western spiritual tradition, one is an angel and leading an angelic life – angels of course being by nature androgynous. It is thus no accident of language that the Sanskrit word for what we call celibacy or, more correctly, chastity, is brahmacarya (Pali brahmacariya), which literally means faring, practicing, or living like Brahma, i.e. not merely abstaining from sexual activity but transcending the sexual dimorphism on which sexual activity and sexual desire are based.

This is why Vajraloka, our meditation and retreat center in North Wales, is dedicated not only to meditation 15

(dhyana) but also to celibacy (brahmacarya). Meditation and celibacy go together: they mutually reinforce each other. For the same reason, we encourage single-sex situations of every kind. This is not simply in order to curtail the opportunities for sexual misconduct, but also, more positively, to give both men and women some respite from the tensions of sexual polarization and to provide them with an opportunity of transcending, for a few moments, the state of sexual polarization and being simply a human being and – to some extent – a true individual. For those who wish to develop as individuals, and to progress on the path to Enlightenment, meditation and all kinds of single-sex situations are, in the absence of transcendental insight, absolutely indispensable.

From all this it also follows not only that abstention from sexual misconduct is not enough, not only that one must experience contentment, but that one should not think of oneself as being either a man or a woman in any absolute or exclusive sense. After all, according to traditional Buddhist teaching, in the course of the beginningless series of one’s existences one has been both a man and a woman many times. One has even, perhaps, been a god – an androgynous being.

Within a perspective of this kind it would seem quite ridiculous to think and to feel that, just because one happened to be a man or a woman in this existence, one was a man or a woman forever and ever, world without end, amen.

To the extent that one ceases to think of oneself as being a man or a woman in any absolute and exclusive sense, to that extent one will cease to speak and act as though one was a man and nothing but a man or a woman and nothing but a woman, i.e. one will cease to behave in that sexually ultra-polarized fashion which for Buddhism is exemplified by the figures of the male and female asuras. Male asuras are fierce, aggressive and very ugly, rather like the orcs in The Lord of the Rings. The female asuras are voluptuous, seductive, and very beautiful, and eat any human males who are so unfortunate as to fall into their clutches. What the male asuras do to human females we are not told, though no doubt it can be imagined. Members of the Western Buddhist Order have no wish to resemble asuras of either sex.

This does not mean that sexual differences can be simply ‘ironed out’ or ignored, or that it is possible to pretend that they do not exist. A feeble and colourless unisexuality, which merely seeks to negate sexual differences on their own level, is not to be confused with the ideal of spiritual androgyny. A castrate is not an angel, certain representations of angels in Christian art notwithstanding. Here as elsewhere in the spiritual life what is needed is not negation but transformation, not evasion but progression. So far as the Third Precept is concerned, especially in its positive formulation as Contentment, this progression is from an absolute identification with one psycho-physical sex to a relative and provisional identification with it, and from a 16

relative and provisional identification with it to no identification at all. If we can only see this, whether with or without the help of traditional Buddhist cosmology, we shall understand the Third Precept more deeply, and because we understand it more deeply we shall observe it with greater confidence. Theory and practice will both be clear.

Lifestyle Is Secondary – But Not Unimportant from My Relation to the Order (1990)

Going for Refuge is sometimes spoken of in terms of commitment to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, the word being perhaps most familiar to us in the aphorism ‘Commitment is primary, lifestyle secondary’.

As I pointed out in The Ten Pillars of Buddhism, the fact that lifestyle is ‘secondary’ does not mean that it is ‘unimportant’, nor does it mean that ‘lifestyle’ represents some ethically neutral way of life that can be combined, without modification, with the pursuit of Enlightenment. There are both skillful and unskillful lifestyles, lifestyles that represent an expression of one’s commitment to the Three Jewels and lifestyles that do not represent such an expression. For those individuals who go for Refuge, or who seek to go for Refuge, the best lifestyle – circumstances permitting – is one that contains a strong single-sex element, either by virtue of the fact that one lives in a single-sex spiritual community and/or works in a single-sex cooperative or by virtue of the fact that one is a regular participant in single-sex retreats, study groups etc.

Transcending Gender

from an unpublished seminar, Precepts of the Gurus – 3rd Seminar (1979) Sangharakshita: Brahmacarya is a quite interesting term. Brahma means great, eminent, noble, sublime. In Buddhism we have the brahmalokas, which are the as it were objective counterparts, the objective correlates, of the rupa dhyanas – not all the rupa dhyanas, just the higher rupa dhyanas – and the arupa dhyanas. So the beings reborn in these higher spheres, the subjective counterpart of which are certain higher meditative states, these are called brahmas. Carya means walking, or faring, or living or practicing. So brahmacarya means living or faring like one of the brahmas. And one of the characteristics of these brahmalokas – the brahmalokas are also higher devalokas, you may say – is that there is no distinction of gender.

Q: Androgyny.

17

S: You could say that, yes. You could say also that gender is transcended. In the kamaloka, the world or plane of sensuous desire, including the lower heaven worlds like those of Indra, but not including the rupalokas with their devas, there is a distinction between genders, but among the brahmas there is no distinction of gender; which means that the sort of polarization represented both biologically and psychologically by the distinction of sex is not there.

So brahmacarya, chastity in the true sense, is not just a deprivation of something that you would really like to have; it’s not just disciplinary in the narrow sense. It represents a state of integration and harmony and equilibrium which depends less and less on outside satisfactions, especially the sexual.

The Need for Unpolarized People in the Order

from an unpublished seminar, The Past and Future of the Order, Part 1 – Order Weekend (1985) Q: During the last Tuscany retreat you talked I believe about having anagarikas in the UK. What is your thinking here?

Sangharakshita: Yes, I think I’d like to have some anagarikas in the UK. By anagarika I mean someone who has taken formally, that is to say ceremonially, the precept to observe brahmacarya. He undertakes to abstain from sexual behaviour indefinitely. Not just for six months or a year but indefinitely – not necessarily for life inasmuch as one can give up the precept and revert to kamesu micchachara at any time one wishes. But I would expect that when people do take the vow in this way as anagarikas, they would be taking it indefinitely and they should know their minds very well when they do that.

This certainly is my thinking, and it’s my thinking partly because I think we need to balance out a bit. There are still far too many sexual relationships within the Order and I think we need some anagarikas to emphasise, well let’s say the androgenous principle rather than the principle of sexual polarization. I think sexual polarization is still far too much in evidence within the Order and it’s a disruptive factor. The presence perhaps within the Order of a few people who’ve taken non-polarization as their ideal and are making a definite systematic attempt to act in that way would certainly be a stabilising and unifying factor, because someone who is definitely an anagarika, in the sense of someone who’s definitely taken the vow to observe brahmacarya and everybody knows that can, hopefully, associate quite freely with both men and women Order members without any danger of misunderstanding.

18

Conditions for Movement Toward Greater Celibacy

from an unpublished seminar, Jewel Ornament of Liberation – Tuscany Ordination Retreat (1985) Q: It seems that for young men the practice of celibacy on a long-term basis is often very difficult.

S: I think there are two not very clear statements there. First, what exactly is ‘a young man’? Are you still young, say, at 40?

Q: Let’s say in your 20s. (Laughter.)

S: And what do you mean by relatively long – a month, a week, a year?

Q: On a long-term basis – let’s say a year.

S: I was going to say that’s not very long, but maybe that is pure prejudice on my part! All right, so here comes the question.

Q: Right. In the Buddha’s time, celibacy was required of all the bhikshus. Do you think that this was an extreme requirement, or do you think that under the right conditions any male Order member could practice celibacy on a long-term basis?

S: There are quite a few questions involved here. I think external conditions do make a very big difference.

One of the features of the modern world, certainly of urban life today, is the amount of sexual stimulation that there is around, in the form of advertisements and films and all sorts of things. It is well-known, of course, that the male human being, especially the young – let’s say the 20-year-old – male human being is rather susceptible to such stimulation. So if one really wants to practice celibacy at that period of one’s life, one needs to live and work in a place where there is as little stimulation of that kind as possible.

That, one might say, is a negative condition. There are other positive conditions which are helpful. First of all, experience shows that positive friendships, friendships in which quite a lot of positive emotion is involved, help in taking the pressure, so to speak, off one’s sexual desires. Then, of course, involvement in the arts – in music, in poetry, perhaps the visual arts – either as an enjoyer or as a creator, or both. And then perhaps a certain amount of physical activity, even physical exercise. All these things help, these things constitute or include the positive conditions for the observance of celibacy. I think it is going to be very difficult for someone of the type you describe who is trying to be celibate by force, unless he is of an unusually spiritual 19

nature or temperament, without paying attention to these negative and positive conditions, which help the observance of celibacy. So I think one has to take that into account.

I am very doubtful whether in the Buddha’s day the monks and others found celibacy intrinsically easier, but there were fewer stimulations in the Buddha’s day. Also, once someone had Gone Forth he was living in the midst of nature, and I think that too can be very helpful. It is restful, it is soothing, in a way that life in the city is not. From all the various provisions in the Vinaya Pitaka, it is quite clear that a lot of the monks did not have an easy time with celibacy. Perhaps that is rather consoling to us now. You have also suggested that perhaps there was an almost undue emphasis on it in the Buddha’s day, but one must not forget that then there were no such things as contraceptives, so that if you entered into sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, you were almost certain to have offspring. That would mean a responsibility. If you wanted to commit yourself to a full-time spiritual life as one who had Gone Forth, you could not afford to have any responsibilities of that sort. So if you wanted to be free from responsibilities, break loose from the family and so on, you had necessarily to be celibate.

There is one example I have come across of a non-Buddhist parivrajaka, someone who had Gone Forth, who went forth with his wife, who was a female parivrajaka, but they got into terrible difficulties according to the story, due to poverty and all that, when the time of the wife’s delivery came around; they had a very hard time.

But there is only that one instance I recollect from all the canonical and commentarial literature. So I think that one reason at least for the emphasis on celibacy was to leave the monk free. One also, though, must not forget that there is another aspect to it. The Buddha did on one occasion say, according to the Sutra of 42 Sections, that if there had been another desire as strong as sexual desire, no human being would have been able to gain Enlightenment. This requires some pondering. So one needs to take up a very definite attitude towards this aspect of one’s life: not just as it were leave it to look after itself.

A few weeks ago we had a discussion about this, and I said in response to a question that one should not think in terms of celibacy and non-celibacy as though they were black and white. It is not a question of thinking: ‘Shall I be celibate or shall I not be celibate?’ I think that is entirely a wrong way of looking at things. One has to think in terms of a movement towards greater celibacy. If you look at brahmacarya in the strict sense, it is not only bodily, but also verbal and mental. You cannot really be considered to be fully practicing brahmacarya so long as your mind is not free from sexual desires. Even if you are celibate technically, your mind is not necessarily going to be free from such desires. So it is not a question of either being celibate or not being celibate. One might say that no one, probably, is so celibate that he could not be more celibate, and also that no one is so uncelibate that he could not be more uncelibate. Do you see what I mean? It is a question of degree.

20

If one is taking the spiritual life seriously, there has to be a definite movement in the direction of greater celibacy, of more perfect practice of brahmacarya, from whatever position you happen to occupy at the moment. I don’t think it is a question of either black or white, either this or that. I think probably that is the most balanced way of looking at the whole question: first of all, recognizing brahmacarya as an ideal – that is to say, true, natural or spontaneous brahmacarya; and secondly, recognizing the obligation to work gradually towards that. But just because you have given up physical sex, you are not necessarily celibate in the full sense.

And if you haven’t given up sex, it doesn’t mean that you are completely non-celibate. What is important is the movement towards a definite goal, a definite ideal.

Like a Caterpillar Passing From Leaf to Leaf

Sex and the Spiritual Life – Interview with Sangharakshita in Golden Drum magazine (1988) Q: More recently, you have been encouraging us to think more seriously about, and to aim ourselves more decidedly towards, celibacy.

Sangharakshita: Well, in the early days, most of our early members were in their twenties or even in their late teens. One could not really expect or demand celibacy of people of that age. But those who were 25 or even younger when they joined us are now in their forties. People of that age can certainly start thinking seriously about celibacy, and I have asked people to do no more than that: just to think about it seriously.

Q: Though you do seem content that a few people are taking the anagarika precepts – which include a ‘vow’ of celibacy.

S: I’m not only content; I’m very pleased that they are. They are really nailing their colours, their saffron colours if you like, to the mast. But I never urge anyone to take the vow of celibacy. When people tell me they want to take such a vow, I almost invariably ask them to think about it for a while longer. One can be a member of the Western Buddhist Order without being celibate. One is only asked to keep one’s sex life at the periphery, or towards the periphery, of one’s personal mandala, or at the very least not too near the center.

But if one can be celibate in a non-neurotic way, in a positive and healthy way, I’m sure that will enable one – other factors being equal – to develop spiritually more rapidly, and enable one to be more free to be of use to the Dharma and of use to other human beings.

Q: What would be the distinction between a neurotic and a healthy, non-neurotic celibacy?

21

S: You could be celibate because you were so absorbed by the beauty and attractiveness of the spiritual ideal, that sex just didn’t interest you. That would be a very healthy sexual mode. But then you could be celibate out of guilt, or for the sake of some material advantage. You could be celibate for all sorts of quite negative reasons, which would be neurotic. It certainly isn’t just a question of being celibate. Being physically celibate by itself probably has very little value. What is more valuable is being relatively celibate because the main object of one’s emotional energies is something of a higher order. You can’t be healthily and happily celibate unless you are celibate for the sake of a higher cultural, artistic, humanitarian or spiritual interest. You could even say that sexual frustration takes place when you don’t have at the center of your mandala an interest or an ideal which absorbs your emotional energies.

Q: In the Udana, Sundarananda complains that his mind is always dwelling on the beautiful girl he left behind when he became a monk. The Buddha takes him to a heavenly realm, and shows him goddesses of even greater beauty. What is the teaching there for us?

S: Sundarananda’s experience represents an experience of beauty more refined than ordinary human beauty. So he becomes less attracted, less attached, to lower, human beauty. I don’t think that while still remaining on the level of ordinary human beauty you can simply put it all behind you. You only have a reason for doing that if you have a glimpse of a higher, heavenly beauty.

Q: So what are we to do? Pay more visits to the art gallery?

S: A visit to the local art gallery is not to be despised. Then there is refined music, or engaging in a creative activity. This can certainly absorb one’s energies. Then of course there is meditation. So long as you haven’t developed Insight you will be swaying between engaging in sex and experiencing sexual craving, and being free from that craving. So, in order to make spiritual progress while continuing to have sex, you have to ensure that the sex is peripheral, and that you are mentally free from the hindrance of sexual desire for sufficient periods, from time to time, to be able to achieve higher states of consciousness, and on that basis develop Insight. Once Insight starts being developed, then of course you are attacking the craving at the source. The more you do of that, then the weaker any craving will become.

Q: So there is a sort of gradual path to celibacy: taking some of these things on, developing Insight, adding these refined elements to our lives?

S: Yes indeed! – Like a caterpillar passing from leaf to leaf. While with his rear legs he is still adhering to one leaf, with his front legs he is grasping hold of another. And he doesn’t pull his rear legs forward onto the new 22

leaf until he has planted his front legs very securely on the front leaf.

It is quite impossible to give up everything all at once, though some spiritual disciplines seem to demand that: ‘Give up everything to God: give up everything to the Guru ...’ I don’t think that is humanly possible; you may have a nervous breakdown if you try. But at least seize hold of the spiritual, just like the caterpillar seizing hold of that leaf with his front legs. In a sense, it doesn’t matter if you’ve got two front legs on that new leaf and twenty legs back on the old leaf: at least you’ve grasped hold of that new leaf. Then you can proceed to haul yourself slowly forward.

Psychologically and spiritually speaking, it’s not so much a question of just giving up the old, but of seizing hold of the new while you are still, to some extent, involved with the old, even trapped in the old. Just make sure you do seize hold of the new, and try to seize hold of it more and more. Don’t think there’s no point in seizing hold of the new because you haven’t yet completely relaxed your hold on the old. There are degrees of celibacy. Everybody is celibate to some extent, and everybody is non-celibate to some extent. No one is engaging in sexual activity all the time (I’m speaking here about physical celibacy), and nobody, except for Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, is celibate in body, speech, and mind all the time.

One should therefore understand the principle of celibacy, which in Buddhism is called brahmacarya. This can be translated as the ‘divine life’, or even the ‘angelic life’. It represents a transition from a lower to a higher sphere, from the kamaloka to the rupaloka, from the rupaloka to the brahmaloka. Brahmacarya means, literally, walking with, or ‘faring’ with Brahma – Brahma meaning a very lofty, spiritual state. When you are celibate in body, speech, and mind, well, you dwell in that state. But you’re trying to dwell in that state all the time. Some people make a nearer approach to it, others don’t succeed in approaching so near. But everybody, one might say, is to some extent on their way – even if only by accident.

Of course, if you’re leading a specifically spiritual life, if you’ve taken up the brahmacarya, you can try to be more and more celibate. If, for instance, you normally engage in sexual intercourse once a week, then try to make it once a fortnight, or once a month, or even once a year. In that way you gradually detach yourself from attachment to the material world, from the senses, from unskillful pleasures, and you experience skillful pleasures more and more intensely, and pursue them.

I see the FWBO – and the Order especially – as never standing still. I would like to see everybody involved with the Movement, everybody involved with the Order, becoming more and more celibate, every day if you like.

23

I’m not asking anyone to give up sex all at once; I’m not expecting them to do that. But inasmuch as I expect people to progress a little every day, then I expect them, in a way, to give up a little bit of sex every day, so that over the years there is an appreciable difference – so that overt sexual activity plays a smaller and smaller part in their lives.

The Best Age for Chastity?

London Buddhist Center – Q & A (1990) Q: Some time ago you said that the strength of the Order in the future depended upon Order members taking the anagarika vow and relating on the basis of their commitment to it. Also at this time you raised the age you recommended for taking up the life of chastity from 40 to 45, and commented that there were sighs of relief all round. If the Order’s strength is to be gained from Order members becoming anagarikas, we are a weak Order. Are you likely to review the recommended age for taking up the life of chastity again, and perhaps raise it to 50, with even greater sighs of relief all round?

Sangharakshita: Well, of course it can be revised at any time, either upwards or downwards! One shouldn’t assume that the revision is necessarily to be in the upward direction. I might change my mind and think, ‘Well, no, the Order members are much more ready for it than I thought they were.’ Perhaps it might come right down to 35, with, hopefully, sighs of relief all round!

Q: Are you optimistic about the capabilities of Order members in the West to take up the life of chastity?

S: I wouldn’t like to say that it is more difficult in the West than in the East, though the question seems to imply that. Some of our Order members in India don’t find this whole question an easy one. I don’t think it’s particularly difficult in the West as compared, say, with India.

Q: Are you optimistic about the future strength of the Order from this point of view?

S: Well, perhaps I’d better not even try to answer that, because it does mean taking a peek into the future, which is always difficult. I want just to make one or two more general remarks, though not anything, really, that I haven’t said before, on this question of brahmacarya.

If one thinks in terms of taking up the life of brahmacarya at 40 or 45 or 50 or 35, it suggests that it is something new: that hitherto you were unchaste and now you are going to start being chaste; before you 24

were not practicing brahmacarya, and now you are going to start practicing it. It isn’t really quite like that. brahmacarya is a principle that applies throughout. You are all practicing brahmacarya, to some extent at least, at this moment. Do you see what I mean? It is not a question of either you practice it or you don’t; it is a question of degree. Everybody is practicing to some extent, and everybody is not practicing to some extent.

Even anagarikas, if I may say so, don’t practice it fully, because there is also the question of mind, mental attitude, thoughts – those can’t be excluded.

So don’t think too much in terms of ‘Now I’m not practicing brahmacarya and maybe when I’m 40 or 45 or 50 I will.’ It isn’t really quite like that. It’s a principle that you’re trying to apply all the time at every stage of your spiritual life, by gradually shifting your attention away from your sexual relationships and interests on to the Dharma and reducing or minimizing your sexual relationships and activities and making them more and more peripheral as time goes on. It isn’t as though you have a great big conversion when you reach the age of 45 or 50, and suddenly give up everything; you should be preparing for that relative giving up, even here and now, by trying to practice brahmacarya step by step.

It’s the same as with meditation. You don’t think in terms of remaining immersed in meditation for days on end, though you think you might be able to do it in a few years’ time. You practice some meditation every day, and you try to practice a little more each day as well as trying to practice more meditation when you go on retreat. It’s the same with brahmacarya: you try to perhaps have spells of brahmacarya, at least when you are on retreat; or perhaps sometimes you take a brahmacarya vow for a limited period, just to test yourself out, maybe for a month, maybe for three months, maybe for six months. Order members used to do that, but for some reason or other they seem not to be doing it so much these days. Perhaps some of them now think it was a question of alienated idealism; I hope they don’t think that. You see what I’m getting at? It’s not black and white: there’s all sorts of intermediate shades of gray.

Q: The difference is that if we are actually taking up the life of chastity it means a commitment. That is the big change.

S: That is a big change, in a way, because you sort of nail your colours to the mast. But obviously – don’t take this as a loophole – you shouldn’t do it prematurely. Most people can’t just make a sudden switch without a long period of preparation, so I think people should test themselves out and have, say, experimental periods of three or six months, of celibacy before they take a formal vow in the form of an extra precept. There have been a few Order members recently asking me if they could take the anagarika precept and take up formal brahmacarya, but in three cases out of four I haven’t agreed; I’ve asked them to wait and test themselves, and in one or two cases they’ve withdrawn their application, realizing that it was a bit premature.

25

But we need to have brahmacarya as an ideal towards which we are working, albeit slowly, even from the here and now; and I think when one is reasonably confident, and one feels one just needs the extra bit of support which the public taking of a precept can give, then one can take the anagarika vow. But don’t take it without a reasonably long period of experimentation. Don’t expect the taking of the vow to do all the work for you without that preparation.

Q: I wonder if we could have a more conscious, high-profile brahmacarya element?

S: I think we will get that if there are more people who have taken the anagarika vow; there will be more of them around, and in that way they will give it a higher profile.

Q: Could we perhaps chant the abrahmacarya precept in Order situations? As you say, in most situations you’re practicing brahmacarya to some extent ... perhaps chanting it together would bring it more to mind.

S: I think they do that at Vajraloka. But there wouldn’t be much point taking the brahmacarya precept just for, say, the course of a one-day retreat.

Q: Perhaps one could take it on a Convention or something?

S: I think that would be too mechanical; it wouldn’t really need much thought or choice or effort. But perhaps if one was going on a long solitary retreat, and especially if one wanted to try to restrain one’s imagination, one should repeat the abrahmacarya precept at the beginning of the retreat, and make more of a conscious effort to observe brahmacarya, not just in body and in speech but in mind also; not just by way of restraining one’s thoughts but to encourage one to occupy one’s thoughts very positively with other things.

Fifteen Points for Order members Western Buddhist Order Day (1993)

1 Reduce input 2 Think clearly 3 Distinguish fact from value judgment 4 Do not misuse the developmental model 5 Think more in terms of renunciation 6 Don’t accept yourself 26

7 Rejoice in others’ merits 8 Do not argue, discuss 9 Do not keep too many options open too long 10 Keep your promises 11 Be more ceremonious 12 Move towards complete brahmacarya 13 Remember you are a citizen 14 Think of others – especially of those who do not have the benefit of the Dharma 15 Be heroic

Reflections on Sexuality In August 2009 Bhante and a few senior disciples had a conversation of a more personal nature in regard to his homosexuality/sexual history. In the course of the conversation (which was 43 pages long when transcribed) he talks about issues relating to sexual convention, monasticism and practicing neurotic or healthy celibacy. A few brief excerpts are below.

Harm in Suppressing Sexual Feelings (p41) Celibacy is unhealthy when it is too much of a discipline, when it results in the suppression, not just of one’s sexual feelings, but even of one’s emotions. That suppression can make one quite bitter and intolerant. I noticed this very clearly in the case of at least a couple of Dharmacharis when they were anagarikas. It was quite obvious that the suppression of their sexual feelings resulted in the suppression of their kinder feelings, their human sympathies, and this came out in their quite cruel treatment of some people, and having rather harsh, negative attitudes in certain respects. This is a common phenomenon among celibates.

Naturally Becoming Celibate (p34) [My] move into celibacy happened in a very natural way, as is illustrated by my dream life. Even before I ceased to be sexually active a series of very significant dreams commenced, in which I had a sexual encounter with another being, but that being was quite definitely neither male nor female and the experience was much more intense and joyful, even blissful, than anything I had experienced physically with another person. At the same time it was not anything like a wet dream, because there was no physical excitation – it was purely on the mental or, better, emotional level. There was a complete interpenetration of two whole bodies, as it were, and this reminded me of that passage I have already mentioned in Paradise Lost: when Adam questions the Archangel Raphael on how the angels love, he blushes and replies, 27

Let it suffice thee that thou knowst Us happie, and without Love no happiness.

Whatever pure thou in the body enjoyst (And pure thou wert created) we enjoy In eminence, and obstacle find none Of membrane, joint or limb, exclusive barrs: Easier than Air with Air, if Spirits embrace, Total they mix, Union of Pure with Pure Desiring; nor restrained conveyance need As Flesh to mix with Flesh, or Soul with Soul.

I had that dream a number of times and it bridged the transition between my period of sexual activity and my period of celibacy. The dreams started a year or so before the end of my sexual activity and carried on during the first year or two of my celibacy. That was my transition from sexual to celibate – one might say, from kamaloka to brahmaloka.

Joy

from The Yogi’s Joy (2006) Human beings are ruled to a great extent by pleasure, and we can’t function well without it; it has a tonic effect that is important for our overall health. If you haven’t enjoyed anything for a long time, if you haven’t experienced some thoroughgoing happiness and delight recently, you will tend to feel listless and drained of energy. So if you give up the pleasurable things of this life, you will have to replace them somehow. If you don’t replace them with pleasures that will draw you towards a higher purpose, your energy will get stuck and may even force its way out in disagreeable ways. ... The main point is that enjoyment is not a luxury, something peripheral to the main business of practicing the Dharma; it is not an element to introduce if there’s time. It is central to the whole exercise.

28

Articles by Order Members Love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs.

William Shakespeare

Renunciation is a Central Buddhist Teaching Manjuvajra From an article entitled The Joy of Renunciation

The Buddha was liberated, and Buddhists should follow his example by practicing his teaching. By practicing renunciation we too can develop ever more refined levels of Freedom However there is often a tendency to find reasons why it not really possible to practically renounce ‘the world’. But, as Buddhists, we cannot ignore the fact that Freedom and its cause – renunciation – are central to Buddhist Practice. A few examples will amply illustrate this point.

In the Satipatthana Sutta and in many other places in the Pali Canon where he is introducing a discourse on meditation, we find the Buddha saying that, ‘having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building he sits down, folding is legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore ...’ This very simple – and therefore easily overlooked – stock phrase makes it clear that to meditate one must go forth from the world, even if only temporarily. There are of course much stronger suggestions as when in the Dhammapada the Buddha says: Not by a shower of coins does contentment arise in sensual pleasures. Of little sweetness, but painful, are sensual pleasures. Knowing this, the wise man finds no delight even in heavenly pleasures. The disciple of the Fully Enlightened One delights in the destruction of craving.

Or stronger still: Cut down the whole forest, not just one tree. From the forest arises fear. Cutting down both wood and brushwood, be ‘out of the wood’, almsman. For as long as the brushwood of passions of man for woman (for example) is not cut down, so long is his mind in bondage like a suckling calf to its mother-cow.

In the Inquiry of Ugra, which is apparently one of the earliest Mahayana scriptures, the wealthy and influential layman Ugra asks the Buddha how the householder bodhisattva and the renunciant bodhisattva should live 29

and practice the Dharma. Ugra is told that the householder bodhisattva takes Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, he practices right livelihood and respects and supports his family, friends, and servants. He never abandons his efforts for the welfare of others, even at severe cost to himself. He practices the eleven ethical precepts (including celibacy and abstention from alcohol and drugs). He encourages others to live by the Dharma; and then he is to consider (and the text goes on at great length and in shockingly direct terms) the unsatisfactory nature of home, relations, possessions, and reputation. Finally he is encouraged, in no uncertain terms, to leave all this behind and live the renunciant life. The Buddha then goes on to describe the joyful life of the renunciant bodhisattva. This is a very idealistic text. As the translator Jan Nattier says, it is not a ‘family friendly’ text, but it is very down to earth and practical.

Milarepa is perhaps the epitome, the ideal, Buddhist renunciant. Although his life story and teachings do not hide the difficulties he experienced in his practice he is an inspiring example of the joys and delight of renunciation. Many of his songs are encouragements to all types of people – householders as well as yogis – to abandon the lesser pleasures of the ‘world’ for the infinitely greater pleasures of spiritual freedom. He is uncompromising in his advocacy of renunciation. For example, the well-known story of The Shepherd’s Search for Mind starts with an interaction with a devoted married couple who offer Milarepa a place in their lives. He rejects their offer and explains very directly why he has renounced the pleasures of the world. He then goes on to outline the Mahamudra teaching to a young shepherd boy who lives free of all worldly ties. Milarepa’s renunciation is always joyful. There is no disgruntlement about the world but only an exultation in the freedom that arises from non-clinging. In one of his famous songs Milarepa sings: Because I have left my kinsmen, I am happy; Because I have abandoned attachment to my country, I am happy; Since I disregard this place, I am happy; Because I do not wear the lofty garb of priesthood, I am happy; Because I cling not to house and family, I am happy; I need not this or that, so I am happy.

Because I possess the great wealth of Dharma, I am happy ...’ and so on for a couple of pages.

Gampopa was Milarepa’s disciple and the systematiser of his teaching. He says in the chapter on meditation in The Jewel Ornament of Liberation: Give up enjoyment of towns and cities and always turn to retreat in the forests. Be singleminded at all 30

times, like a rhinoceros, and it will not be long before the best profound absorption is attained.

Several centuries later Tsongkhapa famously said: Aim your mind ultimately to practice. Aim your practice ultimately to the beggar. Aim the beggar ultimately to death. Aim death ultimately to some dusty ravine.

The Japanese particularly described the life of renunciation in very beautiful terms – as for example in the well-known poems of Ryokan, or in the less well known but delightful short work by Kamono Chomei who describes with charm and great humility his quiet life in The Ten Foot Square Hut (Hojoki).

In recent years Mr Chen, one of Bhante’s teachers, said: The first mistake is not having a foundation of Renunciation as a firm base for the practice of meditation. Quite often I receive correspondence from America, and my lay Buddhist friends there say that to renounce is easy for people in the East but very hard for Westerners. They complain that in the West there are so many things to give up so it is made more difficult. To them (I) reply that the right thing to do is to lay even more stress on Renunciation. If someone finds mathematics difficult to study, the only way in which he can learn and progress in this subject, is to make even greater efforts. So it is with Renunciation. If we find it difficult, we should struggle and put forth great efforts in order to overcome our attachments and enable us to give them up completely.

There are, of course, many other examples that could be drawn from the Buddhist scriptures of all schools. I have chose just a smattering of possible references. I do this not just to drive the point home, but to make it quite clear that Buddhism teaches that to attain spiritual freedom one must to some degree, at some stage or other, renounce ‘the world’.

Roads to Freedom Subhuti

Excerpt from self-published booklet, 2003 In dealing with this question of how to move closer to brahmacarya, Sangharakshita has advocated keeping sex and sexual relationships ‘on the periphery of one’s personal mandala’. This saying has been around for a long 31

time, so perhaps we need to take a fresh look at it.

Perhaps the first thing to say is that this particular way of expressing the idea was addressed primarily to those living in semi-monastic communities (which was the norm for Order members at the time). If you are living with a partner in a committed relationship (and perhaps raising children) it doesn’t really seem appropriate to think in terms of keeping that relationship towards the ‘periphery’ of your life’s concerns! Perhaps for people with such a lifestyle it is more a question of remaining aware that Going for Refuge, while in no way negating ordinary human bonds, must occupy a still deeper place in the heart if it is to be fully effective.

For those living in semi-monastic communities, however, it makes good sense to think in terms of ‘keeping sexual relationships at the periphery of one’s personal mandala’, provided that both partners agree to view the relationship in this way. The idea is useful and clear. The only problem is that it may be deceptively clear: the clarity of the concept may make us naively believe it will be straightforward in practice. But it often is not straightforward.

True, it may be easier to ‘strike a deal’ with one’s sexuality than to suppress it completely, but it would be wise to recognise that sticking to that deal may be hard. The feelings that develop in the intimacy of the sexual relationship easily become very strong, even if neither partner originally intended to let that happen. You may end up much more deeply involved than you planned, or than you even realise. And that may make you try to delude yourself (and everybody else) that your sexual relationship is on the periphery of your mandala, when actually it is very near the center of it.

In trying to keep a sexual relationship ‘at the periphery’, one has to be careful to do justice to the bond that one has with one’s sexual partner—to honor that human relationship, and act with the kind of sensitivity and care that are appropriate to any intimate human connection. However, if you really are committed to going deeper in the simple communal life, you will need to take care to ensure that you are finding the greater part of your emotional fulfillment and satisfaction within that life, and not relying too much on your sexual partner for warmth, intimacy and self-expression.

Clearly friendship within the communal life is crucial here, and an important part of that is open communication. In particular, I think we need to be very open about our sexual and romantic life with the friends with whom we share the simple, communal life. This includes being receptive to their kindly questions and comments, and not being secretive or defensive about the extent to which one is involved with one’s sexual partner, and how one feels about the relationship.

Of course, we need to be mindful when talking to our friends in the simple communal life about their sexual 32

relationships: we need to remember that they are free adults, that different people are at different stages, and that spiritual growth isn’t necessarily a linear progression along a pre-determined route. Those who are not in a sexual relationship may resent (if only unconsciously) those who are, and their questions and comments may carry a censorious edge. Such an attitude intrudes on people’s autonomy, and is only likely to push them deeper into their sexual relationship, and make them more secretive about it (and may even drive them out of the simple communal life altogether!)

Human beings need fellowship, warmth and intimacy. Those who have chosen not to find these things in the conventional way, through sexual love, will need to make sure that they find them through friendship.

Without a communal life, shared with spiritual friends, those who are trying to move in the direction of chastity can easily become lonely. I know of studies of celibate Roman Catholic priests, for example, that show that many of them suffer acutely from loneliness.

Ideally, each of us should have a range of such friendships, including a few deep ones that are built on a sense of mutual commitment, and which we regard as lifelong. And although temperaments vary (some are more social than others), most of us are happier when we are in frequent and easy contact with our friends. A communal life is well designed to satisfy these needs, and to my mind it is potentially the happiest mode of existence.

Of course, the warmth we experience with friends in the communal life is not the same kind we get from a sexual relationship. If is important to understand this because if we are expecting it to be on the same wavelength, we may miss it. It is quite different in feeling, and generally takes longer to grow, but is potentially just as satisfying, or much more so. And the bonds we have with close spiritual friends are much less prone to the jealousies, misunderstandings and conflicts that seem to arise so easily in sexual love.

Communal living should ideally combine a collective dimension with scope for individual friendships. There is a pleasure in sharing activities that involve the whole community, such as mealtimes, meditating or doing puja together, community meetings (which can include many activities: study, discussion, casual chat, games, and so on), or just going out together to see a film or a concert. Nothing should be compulsory, but it is good to have a variety of ways of being together. I think this collective aspect is vital, as the community needs to be something more than the sum total of individual friendships. But at the same time, a community should also be a context in which you can develop deep friendships with other individuals. Without that, the collective dimension will not, in the end, be enough to satisfy the heart.

33

Sexual Evolution Dhammadinna

Article from Dharma Life magazine, Summer, 1998 This article doesn’t discuss brahmacarya per se but provides an interesting subjective history or survey of sexuality in the Triratna Buddhist Order since its inception in 1967.

In the late Sixties I lived in a large commune of ten adults and four children. Some friends lived in a much looser commune where people didn’t even have a room of their own, but changed rooms and partners on a nightly basis. The Sixties was a time of both genuine idealism and great naivety. Some of us believed, at least for a while, that anything was possible and that we could change ourselves and the world through love.

This was the era of free love, jazz, poetry and drugs; the development of humanistic psychology and the cult of free expression; the re-emergence of the women’s movement and the advent of gay pride; the greater availability of birth control, especially the pill; and, from a background culture of drugs, the explosion of LSD to a wider public. It was a time of exploration and experimentation in many areas of life – political, philosophical, mystical and religious, psychological, artistic, musical, social, chemical and not least sexual.

Sexual liberation meant hedonistic, guilt-free sex: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, with one or a number of partners. From both humanistic psychology and drug experimentation came attitudes such as ‘letting it all hang out’, ‘going with the flow’ and ‘if you feel like doing it, do it’. The positive side of this was a willingness to explore and experiment, taking nothing for granted. There was also a darker side induced by confusion, bad trips and sometimes descent into addiction, alienation and despair.

When Sangharakshita returned to England in the early Sixties, after 20 years in India as a Buddhist monk, it was with people from this counter-culture that he found himself working. As the incumbent at the Hampstead Buddhist Vihara, he encountered a much more respectable section of society. But increasingly, the people he taught came from the counter-culture, and their energy and radicalism seemed to offer a basis for engagement with the transformative teachings of Buddhism.

In 1967 Sangharakshita founded the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) with the aim of developing ways of practicing Buddhism that were appropriate in the modern world. From these beginnings a Buddhist movement developed. During the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers involved in the FWBO were small. We were a circle of friends attempting to put our ideals into practice and develop a new society based on Buddhist principles. Many of us were young and were willing to question and challenge all areas of life.

34

But times have changed, and some of the things we did in the past have given rise to controversy. Perhaps it is time to take stock; to look back on those early experiments, and consider what was learnt and what has been left behind. This means understanding the attitudes and activities of previous decades in the context of their time. We should be aware of the tendency to see the past through the eyes of the present: a time affected by AIDS and by discussion of sexual abuse, as well as by political correctness and gender politics.

When I first encountered the FWBO in 1970 I was 24 and a hippy. I was in an ‘open marriage’ and, although I had personal sexual difficulties, I subscribed to the ethos that sex was a form of communication and it was open to each person to decide what they wanted to do. In my commune people had changed or shared partners, and I was not prejudiced about homosexuality or lesbianism, having friends of both persuasions.

In the FWBO people were of differing ages but many were young like myself and shared my ideas. When I first met Sangharakshita, he cut an unusual figure. He was dressed in orange robes, but had long hair and wore a Tibetan mala. He was also friendly and informal, although with an obvious air of spiritual authority and wisdom. Early retreats could be quite wild, with people dancing and drumming on the lawns, engaging in drama or dream groups, forming and leaving relationships, as well as engaging in serious spiritual practice.

Sangharakshita initially gave us a great deal of leeway, affirming our enthusiastic search for Truth, but he also knew when to begin to demand more. On the summer retreat of 1972 he introduced triple periods of meditation, long periods of silence, and an emphasis on mindfulness and reflection. After this retreat many of us decided to take our spiritual lives more seriously and formed the first residential communities around Pundarika, our center in north London. And in 1973 I was ordained into the Western Buddhist Order.

Early in my involvement I wanted to go away and meditate for a few days and I chose a Tibetan Buddhist center. The people there were friendly but referred to rumours concerning Sangharakshita and sex. I was not at all bothered; it didn’t occur to me to check with Sangharakshita whether they were true. I had made a spiritual connection with Sangharakshita, and through him with Buddhism. He had befriended and guided me. I knew he wore robes for ceremonial reasons but less and less so otherwise.

I did not think of Sangharakshita as a traditional bhikkhu, and at that time I wasn’t particularly interested in traditional forms of Buddhism. I trusted him. I had always found him willing to talk to me about all aspects of my life. He was sympathetic and helpful to me when my marriage broke up, encouraging when I practiced celibacy, and understanding when I gave it up.

As our practice deepened my contemporaries and I in the WBO began to see that sex could cause a lot of confusion and be a distraction from Buddhist practice. Moreover we were beginning to realise that the 35

romantic ideal—so prevalent in our western conditioning—could lead to dependency, and work against the development of friendships and a harmonious sangha (spiritual community). Reflections such as these led to the establishment of single-sex activities. This began with retreats for men and for women, but developed into the establishment of single-sex communities and Right Livelihood working projects. By the mid-Eighties we came to feel that single-sex activities in all areas of practice were most conducive to spiritual growth.

Our decisions to practice within these single-sex situations and to question our sexual involvements and attitudes arose out of a desire to break our dependency on the opposite sex. This kind of exploration, however, was specific to the West; it arose from the need we felt to discover which lifestyles were most helpful at a time when conventions were being challenged. It wouldn’t be appropriate in a more traditional society, where it might be unacceptable and undermine social stability.

My open marriage had ended amicably in 1972. Through forming other friendships and meditating I had realised how dependent I was on my partner, and I wanted to be more independent. I embarked on further relationships but soon became aware that I still had a tendency to emotional dependence. I wanted to experience myself single and alone, responsible for myself, with the time and energy to devote to my friendships and my spiritual practice. I also suffered from sexual guilt and I wanted some time free from that sort of conflict.

For me, moving to a single-sex lifestyle went along with giving up sex. For others it meant engaging in same-sex sex. Some people did this for a while, perhaps realising they were more bisexual than they had thought, while others discovered their true orientation was towards their own gender. Other people remained heterosexual, and still others became celibate. We were trying to break taboos, perhaps derived from Christian and social attitudes to sex, which sometimes resulted in irrational guilt. Some people began to speculate that homosexuality might be in some way more ‘spiritual’ than heterosexuality, because it was less likely to lead to domesticity and settling down. We also discussed whether spiritual friendship and sexual involvement could go together.

To what extent did these ideas derive from Sangharakshita? In assessing this I have looked back at transcripts of the seminars he led between the mid-Seventies and mid-Eighties. These were intensive and intimate retreats when Sangharakshita led the participants through a Buddhist text, discussing its meaning and its relevance to our spiritual lives. Seminars also provided an opportunity to discuss anything of interest to us. Sexual relationships, sexual orientation, gender, friendship, community life, and lifestyle were all crucial issues as we set up our new Buddhist movement. They were discussed openly and frankly.

36

These transcripts show how careful was Sangharakshita’s thinking. In one discussion he was asked if he thought homosexuality was more ‘spiritual’ than heterosexuality. He commented that we had to consult our own experience and be honest, and he was not sure that there was less psychological projection in homosexuality. However, he suggested, men often fear expressing their feelings for each other in case they are seen as sexual, and this fear can lead to a general emotional repression. He thought that a man having strong feelings towards another man, even if those feelings are tinged with sexual attraction, need not mean he is homosexual. Sangharakshita concluded that spiritually speaking there is probably not much difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and that we must be equally mindful in either. What is important, he said, is that we cultivate friendship, which will help us to leave sex behind.

In 1981 experimentation took another direction at one FWBO center where a number of people decided to engage in friendly heterosexual sex outside committed relationships—in other words, promiscuity. This experiment involved very few people, did not last long, and soon people returned to being single, or celibate, or in settled relationships. Perhaps in response, Sangharakshita gave a talk in 1982 on the virtue of fidelity.

The lecture covered fidelity to oneself, to ideals and to other people. Under fidelity to others came the question of sexual fidelity and Sangharakshita outlined three possible modes: monogamy, promiscuity and celibacy. Each, he suggested, has a healthy form and a neurotic form. By promiscuity he meant non-continuity of sexual partners, in other words serial monogamy. He warned that people should be alive to the difficulties of each approach, and seek to avoid the dangers of neurotic attachment, distraction and so on.

Sangharakshita has always encouraged celibacy. He has stressed that people with a natural desire to be chaste should not be encouraged into sexual relationships by others who might think this more normal. He has also urged his disciples, as they get older, to start thinking of moving towards chastity. In an interview in Golden Drum magazine on ‘Sex and the Spiritual Life’ (autumn 1987), Sangharakshita discussed the powerful, sometimes destructive nature of the sexual drive and the need for those on a spiritual path to invest less emotional energy in sexual relationships.

He also expressed pleasure that more people were taking the anagarika precept, which enjoins chastity. He never urges anyone to take this precept and Order members need not be celibate. One is only asked to keep one’s sex life at the periphery, or towards the periphery. But if one can be celibate in a positive and healthy way, I’m sure that will enable one – other factors being equal – to develop spiritually more rapidly.

During the late 1980s and early 90s more men and women Order members took the anagarika precept.

Becoming an anagarika does not constitute a higher ordination but it involves the precept of abstention from sexual activity (abrahmacarya). Some anagarikas have maintained this precept while others have ceased to be 37

chaste and reverted to their previous status. It seems that being celibate is not easy in the West, as the culture that surrounds us is so concerned with sex.

Sangharakshita maintains, however, that the extent to which we are caught up in sexual activity and craving is a matter of degree. In this sense we are all celibate or non-celibate to some extent, and he said that he would like to see everyone in the FWBO progressively moving away from sexual craving, and becoming ‘more and more celibate every day’.

These then were the attitudes and examples that informed my own approach to sex. When I decided to end my sexual relationship and give up sex, I initially saw this as a matter of taking ‘time out’, and the first couple of years were helpful. But as time passed I came to think sex was bad and unspiritual and that I should give it up for good. To do otherwise would have been to ‘fall back’. But I had not taken a vow, so in reality I was free to choose whether or not to begin another sexual relationship. This became painful and confusing when I started to experience sexual desire again, but it was also illuminating as I began to understand the extent of my irrational sexual guilt.

Sangharakshita was understanding. He said it was important with any decision to keep the initiative and that perhaps I had lost touch with my reasons for choosing celibacy. Some time later I started a sexual relationship.

Over the years I have had a number of sexual relationships, interspersed with sometimes quite long periods of being single. The periods when I was able to be alone and still feel contented and happy have been important to me and helped my relationships to become less neurotic. At the moment I am single and happy with this state.

These days the FWBO is much larger: at first the whole Order could sit in one room and discuss its future in terms of principle and practice. It is harder to see what sexual attitudes in the FWBO currently are, except that they’re varied. The average age of Order members has risen steadily, many of us have been practicing for many years. We also attract more people with families, which has raised further issues. The emphasis on single-sex activities, community living and team-based Right Livelihood work has sometimes led people with families to feel marginalised.

This is an area of continuing discussion but recent years have seen many more family groups around FWBO centers. There is a creative tension in this area. On one hand we emphasise renunciation and ‘going forth’ from worldly life (with the institutions of the FWBO offering a practical means of doing this). On the other hand people with families are being supported to find ways of deepening their Buddhist practice. And this is happening more and more.

38

I find it is now much easier to work with this tension. When I was a young Order member trying to set up communities and projects with few resources, I was sometimes alarmed if a team-member expressed a desire to have a baby. I could imagine the whole project collapsing. Now I find my greater life experience and maturity enable me to discuss such issues much more openly than in the past, and I can understand the experience of people with families much better.

Although there is now an undoubted ability to address such matters in the Order, sex and sexuality will continue to be an issue for a community that is neither lay nor monastic. In the FWBO there has always been discussion of sexual ethics—both in general terms and on specific issues. One key area is sexual relationships between Order members and the people they teach. Are these relationships exploitative? Can sex and spiritual friendship ever go together, or are they mutually exclusive?

Some people wonder if such relationships need to be governed by rules. But this would fail to express the spirit in which we approach ethical practice: we seek to understand the underlying principle expressed in the Buddhist ethical precepts, rather than proscribing particular actions. Furthermore, in a Buddhist movement of the size and diversity of the FWBO – which is active in cultures as different as the modern US, India and South America – any attempt to dictate norms of behaviour could become enormously complex.

It is a mistake to regard an Order member in the same way as a therapist or a priest. An Order member is simply an individual who has made a decisive commitment to Buddhism, and who may express this by leading classes and retreats. However, people coming to learn will have expectations; and if sex is in the mix, it can be confusing. So this area needs careful scrutiny and discussion.

Personally I am convinced that the FWBO’s exploratory approach to issues of sex and sexual relationships has been hugely helpful to me and my contemporaries. I have been involved in the FWBO for 28 years and have grown up within it. I have been both instrumental in and affected by its developing ethos. The FWBO’s emphasis on spiritual friendship, going beyond emotional dependency, trying to make sexual relationships less central to one’s life, thinking about ethics, and working towards celibacy have all had their effect on me.

I have been married, single, celibate, engaged in ‘serial monogamy’ and in periods of non-monogamy. I have tried to behave ethically and when I have failed I’ve tried to make amends. I have felt able to be open with my friends about sex and they have been honest with me. By working through strong feelings of irrational guilt about sex and Buddhist practice, I have freed up a great deal of energy. I certainly do not think everyone in the FWBO needs to experiment sexually. But I hope people feel they can be honest about who they are without incurring condemnation.

39

Particularly in the West, where there are so many options, we need to examine our sex-lives and make choices in accordance with our overall spiritual direction. As a result of our early explorations, we now have thriving single-sex teams and communities, which provide good conditions for serious Dharma practice. We have slowly – sometimes painfully – developed the maturity that enables people to discover their own path, and the lifestyle that best helps them to practice the Buddha’s teaching.

Brahmacarya and the Future of the Western Buddhist Order Kamalashila London, 1992

When Arthadarshin phoned me with the request from Bhante to give this talk, I said yes of course. But inwardly I groaned. The subject is such a huge one. Not only brahmacarya – a big enough topic on its own – but the future of the Western Buddhist Order! In spite of much experience of both brahmacarya and the everunfolding future of the Western Buddhist Order, I have not fully clarified my thinking about either of these topics, certainly not the first. I had the feeling, I don’t know if it’s true, that Bhante might have been trying to get me to clarify my ideas about brahmacarya. Well, the approaching deadline of this talk has certainly made me want to do that.

I’m rather afraid of the topic of brahmacarya. It is a topic about which one can say much from a standpoint of theory, yet completely fail to live up to it in practice. In the area of sexual life, public pronouncement and private actions can sometimes be completely different things. In giving this talk I feel my own ignorance and inexperience very deeply and would like to request your lenience just in case I happen to tread too heavily upon your delicate parts. In this area more than any other it is seemingly impossible to be ‘all things to all men’ ... and all things to all women. There, I’ve done it already.

Some of you will know that I gave a talk on brahmacarya on the Order Convention in 1985. It was called ‘The Brahma Life’. I thought it had potential, and in my ambition I evolved this talk into a somewhat lengthy paper that I read in one or two places over the following year. I tried to synthesise my understanding of the principles of traditional Buddhist monastic life with Bhante’s ideas, mostly I think from The Ten Pillars of Buddhism, about brahmacarya, the dhyanas, and insight, together with some personal observations about sexual relationships and sexual continence. I struggled with this paper over that whole period, and as I did, it became even more lengthy and increasingly dry. I don’t think the paper had to be as dry as it became – on rereading it, the core arguments seem sound enough. The dryness was my dryness. For as I wrote, I lost some of my faith in the Brahma Life.

40

I never bothered to complete the paper, partly because its message seemed to be increasingly irrelevant at Vajraloka. Even though we had always been a monastic community of sorts, the idea of monastic life had not really been ‘in’ at Vajraloka for some time. To some extent we were forced in this direction by circumstances.

The various other FWBO Centers always insisted that we must support ourselves financially through getting men to go on retreat. So the notorious, and very unpopular, ‘quota system’ was evolved, by which centers undertook to underwrite a certain number of retreat places. In response to this situation, we felt that we should provide more teaching and give ourselves a higher profile.

To some extent the community felt that the monastic life was not an attractive basis for promoting these activities. Though I was not a member of the community at that time, I did not agree with this. I thought that if it was lived in the right spirit, such a community could be very attractive. But I was in a minority, and so felt in danger of getting isolated from my fellow chapter members. In any case I felt that my position might be extreme. I found it hard to know what was best. And in the climate of those days I felt that I needed to make a tactical withdrawal.

There was indeed a particular climate then. As the 80s drew towards the 90s people everywhere – not just in the FWBO, but apparently throughout British society – seemed to be getting into serious sexual relationships.

It was the decade in which AIDS had to be taken seriously. Mrs. Thatcher was preaching the virtues of marriage and the family, and at that level – the Daily Mail level – her message seemed to be getting through.

In the FWBO and the WBO the era of promiscuity that had flowered – and deflowered – in the early part of the decade was over. Now, more and more people wanted to be in monogamous sexual relationships.

In my isolated position, I was not unaffected by this climate myself. I had been practicing brahmacarya since before my ordination. Obviously at times there had been conflict, but there had been many benefits. But I wasn’t completely sure about my relationships with others, which at that time were a little strained. What’s the point, I thought, in insisting on being different? Is this really helping my communication? Why be rigid? Why not do something new and maybe learn something? Maybe I was premature in deciding to go celibate in my 20s. Can I really profess to know about the benefits of the Brahma Life without some sexual experience in my more mature years? Thus I eventually decided, well, if you can’t beat them, join them! Maybe, I thought, this is an opportunity for me to do some experimentation. Everyone else in the Order has been experimenting – so maybe they know something that I don’t!

Whether my disrobing was a useful skillful means or a spiritual disaster, time alone will tell. I do think that it was useful, for me, from some points of view. I’m doubtful as to whether it was useful for anyone else. More recently I have resumed the brahmacarya vow for a year, and ... well, we’ll have to see! But anyway, the paper 41

about monastic life and brahmacarya died a death. It just seemed to proliferate more and more ideas that I couldn’t tie together. And that was what I was afraid would happen with this talk too. It seems somehow typical of this topic. Sex is a topic to which there seems to be no end, no resolution. And no doubt there isn’t, on its own level.

In the FWBO, the ideal of brahmacarya has been hailed as the resolution of the sexual dilemma. In traditional Buddhism, brahmacarya is praised as the way of life most suited to developing inner harmony and insight into reality. But most people cannot see it in those terms – or rather, they may be able to see it in those terms.

What they find difficult is seeing how the ideal of brahmacarya squares with their own life. Clearly, what we need is some more clearly defined vision of brahmacarya – of this much-extolled resolution of the sexual dilemma. What is the path to its resolution, how can we approach that resolution?

In some recent Order meetings at Vajraloka we have been discussing issues raised by brahmacarya. Once or twice I have watched us talking – me included – and I have thought, “we really don’t know very much about what we’re talking about”. I don’t think this reflects particularly on our chapter. On the whole, I think this is human nature. Here we are, discussing these things so intelligently and openly, but we don’t really know. All our knowledge comes from our limited experience, and that experience is of relating sexually. We actually have very little experience of brahmacarya. We don’t actually know very much about the larger possibilities of the spiritual life. As spiritual beings, we are still unhatched, just embryos. We are speaking from inside the eggshell of ignorance. We are still inside the egg, waiting to be born, waiting to see what is on the outside, in the real world. This is one approach to resolving the sexual dilemma. Looking at where we’re at, looking at the human condition. To do this, we need to start with some very basic facts. I hope you’re prepared for this.

These facts are the ones that your mummy or your daddy might, or might not, have provided you with at a certain tender age. Of course we know these things very, very well indeed, but let’s just go over the basics.

I think that we may need to get these ‘facts of life’ in a more Dharmic perspective. When we talk about resolving the sexual dilemma, we need to be very clear in our minds about what sexuality is. Sexuality is a form of conditioning. And very fundamental to this conditioning is the fact that there is a body. A certain type of body. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, there are two broad types of body: male and female. Conditioned by the type of body, and lots of other things too of course, arise certain mental states – certain feelings and certain emotions – that you’ll be very familiar with.

Of course, within those two broad types, there are many variants of sexual conditioning. Now that sexuality is so much more acknowledged than it used to be – though still, perhaps, not as much as it should be – it has also become more acknowledged that there are very great variations in sexual feelings. And it seems that these 42

differences are so great – since you have to make so much allowance for these differences in your dealings with people – that it could almost be said that the human species divides into not just two but four different sexes.

There’s heterosexual male and female, and homosexual male and female. The members of each of these ‘sexes’ (to use that term) have very different feelings and emotions, and they want those feelings to be respected.

Because for most people, these sexual feelings are very difficult to deal with. Recently, in Shabda, a male Order member told us how difficult it was growing up in the knowledge that he was homosexual. While sincerely respecting his sufferings, I also think that growing up is very difficult with any variety of sexuality. I suspect that the most difficult bit is coping, not so much with one’s sexual orientation, though that’s difficult enough, but with the demand of sexuality itself. As Buddhists we know that these differences don’t make any difference to the basic human potential for Enlightenment, because all human beings can develop the power of selfawareness if they wish. However, we also know that there are many other conditioning factors which can affect a person’s ability to actualise that basic potential.

Where do all these differences come from? According to basic Buddhist teaching, these differences come from past actions and reactions. In terms of the Wheel of Life, our actions condition a physical body and mind, a nama-rupa, of a particular kind. The simple fact that this psycho-physical complex exists, with all its sense organs connected up to an outside world, then inevitably conditions particular feelings of pleasure and pain.

Pleasure and pain are the basic stuff of experience. And all this experience centers on our body, this body that we’re ‘in’, so to speak, right now. The body is so crucial to sexual conditioning because whatever our mental conditionings, whatever our feelings of maleness or femaleness, we possess sexual organs, – or rather a sexual organ, singular! The physical body has in it, or on it, a physical organ with which the person whose organ it is may reproduce himself or herself.

I think you probably know this, so I won’t go into too much detail. But just to complete the picture, the male and the female play different roles in the process of reproduction itself. Broadly speaking, as you may know, in order to reproduce they have to cooperate so that their sexual parts, as it were, function together. It’s hard to describe in words ... But it just so happens that the action itself can be extremely pleasurable. So pleasurable that the sexual organs become aroused in anticipation of that pleasure – and it’s an arousal that affects not just the sexual organ, singular, but the whole body and mind. This arousal demands satisfaction, and very often the demand for satisfaction is so intense that it overrides every other kind of desire.

So we’re driven, by these demands, to exercise these reproductive organs. We can exercise them on their own, too, but, you know – what with one thing and another – the net result very often is that we find ourselves exercising them with another person. And the fact is, that is what we most want to do. Now, this may be the bit that you weren’t told by your mummy and daddy. When people exercise their sexual organs they don’t 43

always do so because they want to have babies. Certainly not consciously. They are more likely to have sexual intercourse because their sexual organs are demanding satisfaction. And at this point, it all starts to become rather complicated.

It becomes complicated because they – that is, we – then have sexual intercourse because of a whole complex of reasons to do with getting pleasure and getting satisfaction. It gets complicated because the experience of pleasure, any pleasure, is, of its nature, addictive. And then follows a huge proliferation of rationalisations, views, and lifestyles based upon that addiction. It’s such a huge proliferation of rationalisations, views and lifestyles that the proliferation is, for many people, indistinguishable from life itself. In other words, life, for many people, becomes basically about providing the conditions for sexual fulfillment. It’s about creating a lifestyle based around sexual fulfillment. Which very often boils down to finding the money to create a lifestyle based around sexual fulfillment.

Very often, even if sexual intercourse is not pursued directly for the sake of reproduction, the net result is babies anyway. That is certainly the case with most heterosexual couples. Another influence may be the woman’s possible unconscious desire to conceive a child. But anyway, even if their particular kind, or style, of sexual intercourse doesn’t result in babies, any sexual couple – that is, hetero- or homosexual – will very often end up setting up a lifestyle which is based upon their mutual addiction to sexual gratification.

Now, I’m aware that a lot of people find this kind of analysis of sexuality offensive. They feel that sex is a fairly harmless thing, and this kind of talk destroys its magic. My words are not exactly romantic. Of course, sexual intercourse is pleasurable and fulfilling, it makes people happy, certainly for a while. We probably all know happy couples. But the reason why such couples are happy may have more to do with factors other than sex.

And anyway, other strong pleasures, like certain drugs, have their own magic and fulfillment too – they also have their own kind of romance, and they also make people happy, for a while at least. So I can’t see that any taking of offence is really reasonable here, because even though sexual intercourse is pleasurable, it also causes a great deal of suffering to many people. Naturally people would rather romanticise it – like some people do with drugs too. They really don’t want to look at what their sexual lives do to them. What is most important to them is maintaining them or perhaps improving them. They don’t want to look at the dilemma in which they are getting themselves involved.

In the context of the spiritual life, there is so much that could be said here – it’s the kind of thing that someone should write a book about. But since this is an area where many fools may rush in with their strong opinions, we need an exceptional angel to write it. There is such a huge difference between the world-view of an ordinary person – who just gets on with life and sexual relationships, and sees the word in those terms – 44

and the Buddhist view. It’s a very knotty area indeed, the source of a lot of pain and anxiety to a lot of people.

People don’t like anything that appears to threaten their sexual relationships, and they can see these ideas as moralistic, puritanical and life-denying. How can we show them that the real source of their pain and anxiety is not Buddhism being an old kill-joy, but their own dilemmas, their own inner confusion? It is the contact with reality, with the truth of the situation, that is difficult. And our minds too are strung out somewhere amidst this difficult issue. ‘Strung out’ isn’t a bad expression in this context. It means dissipated, enervated, wasted – the kind of state that one associates with a hang-over.

On that note, I spoke just now of addiction to sexual gratification. As you all know, the vicious nature of addiction is the central point that the Buddha made in his teaching. According to the Buddha, everything that is unsatisfactory in our lives is the result of our craving, our addiction to pleasure. Not that there’s anything wrong with pleasure in itself. But addiction to pleasure is slavery, is suffering, is dukkha. Of course, people don’t see, certainly don’t want to see, their sexual activities in this way. It just makes them seem sordid, dirty. The things that they hold as of primary importance in human life, they’re being told, are merely about addiction to pleasure. Someone is talking as though they were some awful, half-crazed, drug addict. Don’t forget, we’re talking about people here – real people with families, our own families, parents, brothers, sisters, friends – even other Order members. Actually, even us. Our sexual relationships are precious to us in a way that we don’t want to associate with the notion of addiction. The suggestion is repellent, nasty, narrow. It feels unjust.

What is happening here? What is happening is that there is a difference between the instinctive sexual basis of sexual relationships and all the other things, the more human things, that can go along with them – the things that people want to go along with them. People want friendship, want companionship, want someone to be interested in them, want someone to depend on them, want someone to relate to. And once the sexual bond is established there really is a relationship – a relationship with very real demands: ethical demands, financial demands, emotional demands, social demands, demands on one’s intelligence, one’s cunning, one’s generosity – in short, all the things that makes one feel alive, that make one feel responsible, that make one feel, as they say, potent. That make one feel like a valid human being. And, for many people, a sexual relationship really does provide a way to feel part of the human race. No doubt for many people the responsibility of a sexual relationship, particularly if there are children, forces them to behave ethically, and thereby gives them a sense of their own value for which otherwise, perhaps, they would not know where to look. The modern world doesn’t provide much in the way of a spiritual direction. We can say to such people, look – there’s another way of developing ethically, there are other ways of exercising responsibility. There are much better ways, ways that do not depend upon sexual intercourse.

45

But there I go again, bringing that in. Is intercourse really relevant to this aspect of things? But sexual intercourse is what bonds such relationships. Without that bonding, all that remains are the ethical demands and the responsibility. Under that pressure, you naturally want a bit of bonding. That’s the deal in a sexual partnership – at least it is once it gets serious. You certainly wouldn’t want your partner to do any bonding with anyone else. Indeed, you’ve got a right to bond specifically with them. And in fact, one feels all this very, very strongly indeed. If this feeling is denied, sometimes even the nicest, the most refined and friendly sexual relationships, can go disastrously wrong. Things can get really heavy. People kill. People hate. People bear the deepest grudges and wreak the most horrible revenges. And it’s all for a bit of bonding.

That intensity of feeling, that intensity of craving, is why the notion of addiction is completely appropriate to this context. Even though it is the bedrock of our society, even though it is eulogised, sanitized, and spiritualised, though it is promoted as the ideal human life by our political and religious leaders. It’s all a makeshift, a cover-up, a rationalisation for something instinctive in which they are themselves are totally involved. Make no mistake, this really is an addiction, in the most direct sense. It isn’t just a metaphor.

Moreover, it isn’t a mild addiction, like tea, or travel, or computer magazines. This is a very deeply rooted addiction indeed. So let’s, while we’re on the subject, ask about the nature of addiction.

One thing that is very characteristic of addiction is that it’s a downward spiral into mediocrity. One begins with an unbelievable high, the apparent summit of existence. One ends with an equally amazing flatness; an endless journey through the same imaginable flatlands of experience. Addiction is a process. Our addictions, to whatever pleasures, end up as slavery to a decreasing quantum of the pleasure to which we originally became addicted. This is the phenomenon that us sixties people used to call ‘tolerance’. Eventually one must always have some of the thing that used to provide the pleasure merely to feel normal. Without the thing, one feels anything from mild insecurity to raving madness, the DTs, pink elephants, paranoia, frequent correspondence, and sleepless nights. With it, when one’s got it, one merely feels – well, normal. Just OK. It used to feel fantastic, but now there’s nothing that special to the experience any more, though of course one enjoys it to some degree, mostly because it stops that horrible, depressing feeling of craving for a while. And the whole business causes reactions of all kinds, reactions that you can see happening everywhere around.

Some people – the more passionate and the less sophisticated perhaps – go right into the sexual game, get hurt, and then try to dry out, go cold turkey, purify themselves. Then it gets them again, like a madness, and round they go again. They may have all kinds of reactions afterwards. They may get misogynistic or misanthropic. No doubt it’s understandable, in a way, that they do. These are like the people who get into a serious mess on drugs.

Other people, the more emotionally cool and perhaps more calculating, run their relationships on a kind of 46

knife-edge between mutual addiction and mutual exploitation. The main idea is to get as much enjoyment as possible out of the relationship without getting too attached, and of course – they’ll say, and mean – without hurting one another. They see one another as little as they can bear, so that when they do meet, it’ll be suitably intense, so they don’t get bored. But of course they have to see one another sometimes – within a certain indefinable time span – otherwise they’ll forget, essentially, who they are supposed to be in a relationship with.

These people certainly don’t get misanthropic or misogynistic. Or reactive. They’re far too clever for that.

Why spoil things? These people are like the smarter addicts who are able to manage their habit, and even live relatively normal, though stoned, lives.

What we’ve just looked at is just one important aspect of what we’re doing in our sexual lives. We’ve looked at how we deal with our addiction to that way of relating. We’ve also noted that that’s not how we normally see it. Hardly at all. It seems, perhaps, a crude analysis. I can almost see the catch-word ‘simplistic’ spreading out, like smoke, across the ceiling. But this way of seeing sexual relationships was certainly the Buddha’s view. And because it is the Buddha’s view, we must weigh our own responses with care. Indeed, weighing our responses, watching our reactions, is one way that we may begin to resolve the dilemma of sexuality.

It’s a way towards that resolution because it is a reflective way. Reflection upon the real nature of dukkha, of the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned things, will lead, eventually, to our actually seeing the nature of unsatisfactoriness.

Brahmacarya is a funny word, isn’t it? But as a word it seems to connote better things than ‘celibate’ – which just means the unmarried state, i.e., a state of not having something. Here we’ve got an expression for the positive state of freedom from sexual craving. So what is brahmacarya? Well, we’d better let’s start with what it’s not, because I’ve recently heard a real whopper in this context. I’m afraid I even heard it in my own community. In the questions answered by Bhante in Golden Drum, he said that no one is 100% chaste, no one is having sex 100% of the time. If we’re developing mindfulness to any extent at all, each of us here is probably, in one way or another, at one level or another, working with our sexuality. But this doesn’t mean that we are practicing brahmacarya. Brahmacarya does not mean simply working with one’s sexuality. That is, it doesn’t mean working with one’s sexuality within the context of sexual relationships and sexual intercourse.

Unfortunately, this idea of ‘working with one’s sexuality’ is more than a little ambiguous. It seems to mean anything from refining one’s sexual technique, through men’s or women’s liberation, to refining one’s sources of inspiration.

No doubt all of these things can be done in the context of a sexual relationship. But one doesn’t practice brahmacarya while in a sexual relationship, or while remaining open to the possibility of sexual intercourse.

47

Of course one can work with one’s sexuality in that way, to a certain extent, but that work couldn’t be called brahmacarya, as such. Because brahmacarya means working with sexuality outside the possibility of sexual gratification. Those who practice brahmacarya don’t see it as a deprivation but as a better way of living.

Brahmacarya means the cultivation of higher states of awareness as a basis for the development of insight. It implies a lifestyle that is not dependent upon sexual intercourse for inspiration but draws on greater sources of inspiration.

What sources of inspiration, you may possibly be asking. These higher sources of inspiration lie outside the metaphorical eggshell. Sometimes we can poke our little claws through the shell and feel some of this inspiration. But unfortunately the eggs into which we happen to have been born have a peculiar property.

The holes that we make – that we make through our spiritual practice – don’t remain there for very long.

Sooner or later, the shell just grows back again. So we can’t just lie there secure and snug, gazing out wide-eyed through the little holes. Not for very long, anyway. The holes do sometimes stay open for a short while, but not often. There’s no half-way position regarding this egg situation. We can either break out completely, or just snuggle back down into the warm interior again. Before we go any further into this, we need to take on board the second aspect of this talk – that is, the Order.

The Western Buddhist Order is coming into its first mature years. Many of its members are entering the age which Jung thought most fruitful for the development of the inner life. No doubt meditation practice changes that a bit, but still, I think for the majority of us the middle years are years of deeper reflection – and, potentially – deeper contact with reality. Because at this time we realise, far more clearly than ever before, that our lifespan is limited. Everyone seems to do this to some extent, in some way. They have to come to some kind of terms with death and impermanence. This ‘coming to terms’ may be more in terms of the spiritual life, or it may be more in terms of worldly life. It may be that the main question that arises is one’s physical comfort in old age – housing, pension, and all the rest of it – or it may be that we start making more serious preparations for the bardo.

It’s a funny time, too, because I’ve noticed that even though the potential of the inner life does open up a little more, we can also be at our most worldly in our forties and fifties. Removed by our years from the urgency and the idealism of youth, we’re often more realistic, more in touch with the world. We’re at the height of our worldly powers, we know the ropes, we know what’s there to be had in the world, we know what we like and how to get it, and maybe by now we’ve acquired the wherewithal to get it, too. The young and the old are at the edges of life. They’re nearer to death, nearer to the bardo, than we are. It’s a long time since we were out there, forty years or more, and it seems to us that it’ll be a long time yet before we go there again. So even though in middle age we have come to terms with death in a certain sense, at the same time we’re very much 48

involved with life. We don’t hold back from it, we’re not shy – and also the world looks mostly to us, the mature experienced men and women, for the real action. These are important years, and they are dangerous years too, if we manage to get ourselves sidetracked on the spiritual path. At this age we are also most able to insist on getting what we want, and this may not be what we need spiritually. And of course, we know what we want. Sexual relationships. Sexual fulfilment. Sexual satisfaction. We want to ‘work on our sexuality’. And even though our looks are increasingly against us, we know that in this game, that isn’t the only factor. We know that if we want, we can use our experience and know-how to make up for all that, and the overall result is that we get what we want.

The bearing that this has on the future of the Western Buddhist Order is clear enough. If we want the Order to continue to function as a spiritual community, rather than as just a group, then there must be a perceptible movement away from addiction. We must be seen to be making spiritual progress. There may be many attempted definitions of spiritual progress, but the Buddha’s definition was freedom from addiction, freedom from craving and attachment. So if we are really to live up to our stated aims as a Buddhist Order, we must have a perceptible commitment, an obvious commitment, to spiritual growth in this sense.

I’m afraid I have some doubts as to whether we are really heading towards establishing a spiritual movement. I am optimistic by nature, I am faithful in temperament. But in this vital area the signs are not clear. I feel that we don’t have a sufficiently strong commitment to developing the insight that leads to emancipation. We have commitment to our friendships, commitment to our center, right livelihood, whatever – and these things are all good things – but I think that we should examine the nature of that commitment. I think that we need to consider to what extent our practice of the mundane perfections, the mundane paramitas, is really informed by wisdom. I’m afraid that means that we need to consider whether our spiritual efforts have any point to them at all.

I think that in the beginning, the majority of Order members used to see their practice almost exclusively in terms of dhyana and insight. Perhaps a little bit of renunciation too. Then later, seeing that there was a need to promote the special values that Bhante was showing us, they started to see their practice in more Mahayanistic terms, in terms of action – principally in terms of giving themselves to the needs of others. They maintained a meditation practice, but the main emphasis got laid upon dana. I’m generalising, of course, because there is a great variety of Order members, but I believe that this is a fair average now as well.

Over the last couple of decades our practice, we may say, has not been limited to meditation. Almost all of us have gone through the trials and tribulations of setting up centers and retreat centers, helping friends and mitras, dealing with the world, getting money, setting up means of livelihood, setting up good relations in 49

the chapter – so many things, so many very difficult, demanding things – what a life it’s been, for many of us.

And there has been a great deal achieved through all this dana. A momentum has been set loose in the world that others can easily participate in.

The FWBO has all been founded upon giving, giving that so far, on the whole, has been underpinned by Bhante’s wisdom, not our own. Certainly I think that we have given the other perfections a look-in – we’ve tried to make our actions ethical, we’ve certainly had to exercise patience and energy. There has been a little meditation, and a fair amount of the pursuit of wisdom too, certainly in the form of study, in the form of sutamaya- and cintamaya-prajña – taking in ideas and reflecting on them.

But the future of the Western Buddhist Order in itself, apart from its works in the world, apart from the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, really depends upon us laying down, individually, our own underpinning of wisdom. And this must be the third level of wisdom, the level, that is, of bhavanamayaprajña. The level of vipassana meditation. As the Perfection of Wisdom sutras say, without wisdom, the other perfections are blind. Giving, Ethics, Patience, Vigour, even Meditation in the sense of samatha, are all very great virtues, but they have no eyes. Even meditation has no eyes. And as the Prajñaparamita says, without a guide who can see, even a million blind men – or women – will never, ever, find the way to the city of Enlightenment. And nor will we, I’m afraid.

I think that the Order may be entering a phase in its development in which the paramita of Wisdom is crucial. There is no question in my mind that everything that has been achieved through the FWBO has been completely necessary. You can’t create wisdom out of ideas alone. That’s just sutamaya-prajña – the raw, undigested information. You must reflect on those ideas, and reflection often means testing ideas out in practice as well as thinking about it in the mind. What’s the use of reflecting, for example, on the principle of Sangha, without any actual experience of what Sangha is like? Even the idea of sunyata, of conditionality, of impermanence, needs to be tested in experience as well as in the crucible of reflection. But the crucible of reflection, the inner solitude without which reflection cannot take place, is also vital. So I am saying several things at this point.

First of all, I am repeating the Buddha’s words in saying that insight, vipassana, is the only effective way out of the suffering of craving. I am saying that insight proper, in the sense of vipassana meditation, in the sense of bhavanamaya-prajña, must be supported by cintamaya-prajña – an intellectual understanding that we are consciously trying to clarify. And that for this clarification to take place, we need the right conditions. We need some solitude, for example. I don’t just mean solitary retreats; I mean that we need a degree of solitude in our everyday lives. Bhante says a little bit about this in his ‘Advice to a Young Poet’.

50

When we practice brahmacarya, we are practicing aloneness, positive aloneness. Another word for it is individuality. We aren’t relating through a need for another person. And this aloneness, this individuality, means that we can form our ideas more in isolation from others. In other words a connection can be made between brahmacarya and intellectual clarity. To the extent that our body-based, instinctual drives are resolved, to that extent we can draw upon new reserves of clarity and flexibility of mind. This increased degree of samatha increases our propensity for vipassana.

Even beyond this, we need an outlet through which we may test our understanding of the Dharma on the plane of experience. This is yet another important way that we need to clarify our intellectual understanding.

We need a situation in which we can exercise in practice what we merely believe. What we merely talk about, what we merely teach in our centers. To really reflect upon the Dharma, to really be ready to gain insight into it, and to transcend the human predicament of craving, we need to find ways of actually practicing what we preach.

But what do we preach? I know that sometimes we preach rather ambiguous things. Whether in our personal communication with other Order members, mitras and friends, or even in talks and classes at the public centers, we sometimes talk in terms of ‘working through things’, ‘balancing our lifestyle’, ‘being kind to ourselves’, ‘making sure our needs are met’, etc., etc. We sometimes preach ambiguities and half-truths. It’s such a part of the world we live in, so much in the language, that it’s hard to avoid, though I don’t condone it. But I think that first and foremost, when we are really asked – at those times when we really realise what we are doing with people – we preach the way taught by the Buddha. We preach the Dharma, the way out of suffering, the way out of all that is unsatisfactory, the way out of all limitation and mediocrity. And first and foremost, we teach the way out of the morass of addiction, of craving, and the anxiety that goes with craving.

That is essentially what the Dharma is about. In our better moments we are able to engage with the fact that it is that path which people actually need, and then I think it’s that we give them.

But the question is, though this is what we preach, though this is even what we feel, do we practice it? Do we ourselves feel that through our practice of the Dharma we are becoming less addicted to samsaric desires? That through our practice of Dharma we are more and more drawn into the current that goes against the worldly stream? Is this the reason why we are practicing – are we practicing in order to free ourselves from addiction?

Obviously, to the extent that we are not practicing to free ourselves, we ought not to teach, we ought not to preach. I imagine that, like me, you feel a certain discomfort if you are recommending something to others that you do not yourself practice. In such situations we may explain that what we are recommending is an ideal – an ideal that we wholeheartedly endorse, but to which as yet we ourselves only aspire.

51

This is no doubt fine for some mitras and some new Order members. Of course, people are at different levels of commitment. But from those of us who have been professing the Path for ten or fifteen years, the average newcomer is surely entitled to see more money where our mouths are. Surely you’d expect, as a newcomer, more of a commitment to the Path being professed. And I agree that they are so entitled. I would like to see more courage, more confidence, and more imagination, from my fellow Order members. We need ways of finding that confidence and imagination.

We have been exploring one or two approaches to a resolution of the dilemma of sexuality. One Order member recently put the dilemma like this. He said ‘I would like to live the brahmacarya. But I don’t know how to want to. How do I get to want to do it? Actually, we’ve had the most important answers available ever since we got involved in the movement, but I don’t think we use them much – perhaps we don’t really have faith in them. The way, as I see it, is the development of an insightful perspective, the development of wisdom. You can talk about friendship, you can talk about communities, you can talk about emotional support, single sex activities, reportings in, whatever, and these are important aids, indispensible aids perhaps, to living a life of brahmacarya. But I doubt if anyone will make the real break that is necessary just with these.

Not in the long term at least – maybe these things will help in the short term. But even then there has to be some perspective of Dharma.

One of the mitras staying at Vajrakuta recently went on retreat at a certain well-known men’s retreat center, and as he sat on his bunk, perhaps reading, he was a little surprised at the behaviour of the young lad in the next bunk. Every so often a friend of his would come into the room and they would get into bed together and have a good cuddle! This happened several times until our friend, who is fairly new to the movement in England, and has a lot of doubts about the FWBO approach to things, couldn’t help asking what was going on. ‘Oh’, he was told, as though what they were doing was what everyone did, ‘We’re practicing brahmacarya!’

Maybe they were practicing brahmacarya. Perhaps they had found a non-sexual outlet for their physical passions in a way that somehow supported their practice of brahmacarya. I don’t think it would help me practice brahmacarya, though. I think my greatest sources of support have been, firstly, communication in which there has been a real exchange of ideas, and secondly meditation.

This is an example of one possible kind of aid to brahmacarya – perhaps someone somewhere has told these young guys that sex is partly about physical contact and that by having lots of physical contact without sex, you may be able to get rid of your craving for sex. I hope it doesn’t develop into a dogma, though – as these ideas often seem to get interpreted. There is, apparently, a considerable fringe of people on the edges of the movement who have been thoroughly put off the WBO by Order members’ crude misunderstandings of certain things Bhante has said. I met someone only the other day who, on his first night in a men’s 52

community, was told that heterosexual men always have problems with friendship, which of course is the whole of the spiritual life. He was then told that the only way to overcome this was to have sexual intercourse with a man. He was told that even if his communication was very good indeed, there would always be a problem that could only be straightened out by going to bed with a man – presumably with one of that community. That was a bright promising young man. The incident took place eight years ago, and he is still on the edges of the movement, though he told me that Bhante’s piece on sex in Golden Drum convinced him that what he had undergone in that community was not a reflection of Bhante’s thinking but just a piece of sexual bigotry.

I haven’t heard of this form of sexual abuse going on for some time. Perhaps we are over it all now – I certainly hope so. No doubt people can be very awkward and difficult, but at the very least we have to acknowledge the reality of our tendency to exploit others. In fact the whole notion of sexual activity as a kind of path to resolving the sexual dilemma, which some Order members apparently believe, seems quite false to me. Of course it is a very attractive idea, the idea of using sex to transcend sex. It’s attractive because if you say you follow this path then others will still respect you and say – well, at least she’s having a go at it, or at least he’s having a go at brahmacarya. And also, just by the way, you can keep on having sex.

Clearly it’s hard to put on the brakes all at once, but sooner or later, I hate to say this, you do actually have to stop. There will always be an element of cold turkey, withdrawal, difficulty. But there’s no progress without difficulty. Any worthwhile undertaking is going to be difficult. And equally, there’s no escape from the dilemma that we are in – except, possibly, in wilful ignorance and unawareness. We can, if we wish, just allow ourselves to become so stupid that we don’t notice how much we are suffering, and how much suffering we are inflicting upon others. But on a path of awareness, there is no escape from this issue. We ourselves have created the situation that we are in. We have set up home in a burning house. We have created this namarupa, this bundle of tendencies. So much of our energy is tied up in our sexual organs, invested in our need to reproduce – even if we don’t want babies in our conscious mind, that’s what our bodies want, that’s what our private parts want. The reproductive urge is extremely powerful – it’s what makes the world go round, it’s what makes people fall in and out of love, it’s what makes people hate one another. It affects most people’s relationships indirectly, from the people they live with to the nation and the world. It affects the general climate of views and opinions, the kind of opinions that nations go to war about.

When I asked a fellow Order member what I could say on the subject of brahmacarya, he thought for a long, long time. Finally, he said, ‘Tell them don’t do it – it’s naughty’. Well, there you are. But I’m not saying that sex is wrong, or right. I’m saying that we should see the phenomenon of sexual conditioning as it really is – as a form of conditioning which can be transcended. Moreover, addiction to any form of sexual gratification 53

is a form of conditioning that seems to run directly counter to the direction of the spiritual life, and which therefore at some stage of the spiritual life is to be transcended completely. And if we all don’t start seriously trying to transcend it some time, we can hardly justify calling ourselves Dharmacharis or Dharmacharinis.

The conditioning is so big, with so many aspects to it, bound up psychologically as it is, still, with so much of our confidence, that I think to take on brahmacarya as a vow requires a correspondingly big leap of the imagination. I think that if you are going to step down off that fence that you are on, you must also do something just as big with your energies, at the same time. It’s got to be something really huge. Take on the biggest thing that you can think of.

They say that sex and ambition are closely linked. I feel that this is the case with women as well as men, though perhaps in a different way. In my opinion, we’re not ambitious enough in the Western Buddhist Order. I don’t mean ambitious in the sense of having a center in every town – the thin red line of the FWBO will, I’m sure, continue to encircle the globe. I mean spiritually ambitious. Spiritual ambition may well involve starting centers and right livelihoods and what not. But it must also involve a serious attempt to create the conditions for meditation and insight in our own lives. You need to think really big. You need to allow your spiritual ambitions full rein. You need to take them all the way to Enlightenment.

To Have and Have Not: Sex, Celibacy and Spiritual Practice Suvarnaprabha

Notes from a talk given at the San Francisco Buddhist Center, June, 2010

Let’s start with a few reflections. We won’t have a lot of time to reflect on them now, but just to put them out there in case you would like to start reflecting on your own views and experience. And next week we will have a panel discussion based partly around these questions.

1 What are your main sources of pleasure?

2 What are your main sources of craving? Is there something you could do to bring in more awareness?

3 How important is sex in your life? Has this changed over time?

4 How can we have joyful, healthy sexual lives, while being mindful of the ways in which sex can be harmful?

5 In the context of Buddhist ethics, in what way has your experience in the realm of sex been skillful or unskillful? What are the challenges and rewards of sexual expression?

6 If you are currently in a sexual relationship, do you feel that the relationship supports your practice? Does it ever seem to ‘get in the way’ of practice?

54

7 Is the idea of being a monk or nun attractive to you (to some degree)?

8 Have you worked with sexual energy in meditation?

Thanks to the many friends who helped me with a lot of interesting conversations since I’ve been working on this talk, which is a collection of somewhat random reflections, not to say True Confessions, of mine on sex, celibacy and Buddhist ethics.

I am a woman, heterosexual and other than several spicy interludes that were a long time ago, have mostly been in monogamous relationships, so that will probably flavor this talk to a degree. More significant than those things is possibly that I am in a phase of my life in which I have almost no interest in pursuing any kind of sexual relationship. Other than the occasional fondness I feel for Johnny Depp and other random people, when it comes to romance I’m kind like Siddhartha, the Buddha before he was enlightened, looking at the dancers after the party drooling on their pillows and snorting like pigs. I am currently exploring basically a more monastic, and hopefully a more open way, of relating to other people and to myself. So I feel that my perspective on things might very much be in the minority tonight. But anyway if so, so be it, and I hope you will resonate with at least some of what I am trying to convey.

It’s very difficult to talk about this topic, because it involves craving. Apparently the Buddha said that if there were two such powers in the world as strong as sexual desire, we would have no chance for enlightenment. He identified craving specifically as being central to our suffering. But – perhaps we all are overly analytical and we experience irrational guilt and we’ve perhaps been criticized too much in our lives, so this might not be helpful. And sex crosses all the borders of our lives. It spans the realms of the physical, emotional, political, cultural, ethical. And we have a lot of opinions about it.

In The Yogi’s Joy, Sangharakshita writes: Human beings are ruled to a great extent by pleasure, and we can’t function well without it; it has a tonic effect that is important for our overall health. If you haven’t enjoyed anything for a long time, if you haven’t experienced some thoroughgoing happiness and delight recently, you will tend to feel listless and drained of energy. So if you give up the pleasurable things of this life, you will have to replace them somehow. If you don’t replace them with pleasures that will draw you towards a higher purpose, your energy will get stuck and may even force its way out in disagreeable ways ... The main point is that enjoyment is not a luxury, something peripheral to the main business of practicing the Dharma; it is not an element to introduce if there’s time. It is central to the whole exercise.

55

Perhaps you can keep this in mind during this talk. No matter what I say!

Thirst Rumi says, I have a thirsty fish in me, that can never find enough of what it’s thirsty for.

The Joni Mitchell song says, I could drink a case of you.

Then there’s the song by M Ward, If love is a poison cup, drink it up.

The idea of thirst – tanha is one of several Indian words for craving – is an important part of the Buddha’s teaching. But what do we mean by “thirst”? If you’re hot and dry, thirst is what torments you. You don’t really care about anything else but a drink. That is one level – the more intense level of thirst.

The other level is simply the very human impulse that we have to move toward certain things and away from other things and all the emotions and thoughts and feelings and karmic burdens that go along with that process. We are always looking for something to engage and satisfy ourselves with, or we push something away, avoid it, or pretend it’s not there. This is our confusion.

Thirst or craving is a mode of interaction with the world based on want, on lack. This mode of interaction is driven by a murky view that the things we love will, or at least should, last.

This was very beautifully put by Dogen when he said: The flower dies, even though we love it.

The weed grows, even though we do not love it.

This is Buddhist philosophy.

Luckily the Buddha also gave us clues as to what to do about it. Because like so many truths, we all already kind of know this. We know that things and people change and die and move away. Yet we are so often surprised or shocked when things, when situations, end, and things happen that we don’t want to happen. In Zen it is also said that we see the cup is already broken, so we enjoy the precious moments we have with it.

This is the practice of Buddhism and the basis for our endeavor to engage with the present moment.

A popular misconception of Buddhism says that we are supposed to try to stop, or cut ourselves off from, desire, from clinging, from thirst. But the Buddha asks us not to reject experience but rather, to look closely and honestly at it, and directly experience what it is, including its consequences. Apparently in Indian 56

philosophy it is recommended that we do not sleep too much, have sex too much, or eat too much. If we do it will hinder our progress in meditation. But there are other hazards, other areas of craving, not entirely unrelated to food and sex and sleep. I would add to the list: love, craving love. Craving comfort and safety perhaps. These to me are the most basic or pervasive kinds of craving. Wanting love, wanting to be someone who is loved, perhaps wanting to be desired, someone to tell us we’re OK. Possibly to the degree that we seek love is the degree that we are objectifying people, seeing them at least on some level, in terms of what we can get from them. We may have a ravenous craving for sex; we may crave something that isn’t technically sex but is related to sex.

So this is craving, which we all deal with, which we all have to learn to work with more and more skillfully.

But there is another part of our experience too – to use the words of the third precept – more along the lines of stillness, simplicity and contentment.

Sin and Simplicity So, a quick review of basic Buddhist ethics. There is no question of ‘sin’ in Buddhism. A Buddhist does not see anything sinful about sex, as if it were an affront to God or some higher being. If we make mistakes in this or any other area of our life, that is, cause harm, hinder our own development, we should recognize these mistakes, be honest about them, and try to avoid repeating them. The basis of Buddhist ethics is unconditional or unconditioned love. If you only remember one thing, remember that.

In the realm of sex it’s about taking responsibility for our sexual behavior, the effect that it has on others and the effect it has on ourselves, especially on our mental states. Trying to be clear and honest. Sometimes it’s very hard to be clear even about our own motivations, make everything more conscious. I remember a friend saying that he was in a monogamous relationship, but if he had sex with someone while in another country he didn’t really link that to infidelity or dishonesty. So we may have these disconnects, caused presumably by the veil of thirst. As I said before, the Buddha asks us not to reject experience out of aversion but rather, to look closely and honestly at it and directly experience what it really is. This is possibly all we need to do.

We need to remember that sex does usually affect at least one other person, possibly many people. In this respect it is strictly incumbent on us at all times to act compassionately as much as possible and take responsibility for our actions. I’m especially interested lately in ignorance, in the sense of what we ignore. We can ignore a lot in sexual relationships, including much about ourselves. Things can become very entrenched and habitual.

The Buddha and his chief disciples were celibate. In many parts of Asia celibates are considered the true practitioners. Most of these are men. Nuns are not taken as seriously, and then lay ordination is a step below 57

that. Paraphrasing from Sangharakshita’s What is the Sangha?: With respect to sexuality, there are three possible lifestyles: the monogamous (or polygamous where that is an option), the promiscuous, and the celibate. The degree of approval accorded by ‘the group’ towards the way people express their sexuality is based usually on these choices of lifestyle ... But so far as the development of the individual is concerned, there are just two forms of sexual lifestyle: a psychologically unhealthy form and a non-neurotic or psychologically healthy form. Someone who is trying to be an individual may follow any one of these lifestyles, provided he or she follows it in its non-neurotic form.

Conventional sexual ‘morality’, the idea that sex, or certain types of sex, are dirty or some kind of affront to God has caused real harm to countless people. Sangharakshita says that the object of desire is ethically neutral.

So it’s not about lifestyle or whether you’re attracted to men or women, or what you like to do with them.

What’s important is how we relate to the objects of our desire. This perspective is very radical.

We’ve ended up with a culture very conflicted around sex, in which the natural sexual response, as well as women’s insecurity about their bodies, is routinely manipulated in order to get people to buy things. We live in a very sexualized culture, perhaps especially in San Francisco, though maybe the way it is here is actually more healthy in the sense that people have some degree of freedom from conventional morality which can be so damaging. In general there is also a lot of sugar-coating and glorification that goes on in the realm of relationships. The basic issue is causing harm, which again I don’t think is all that simple. Just not knowing what you want, or changing your mind about what you want, can cause harm. Or you can know what you want and be clear about it, but the other person doesn’t really believe it or accept it. Seems like there is often some kind of imbalance. If we’re going to have a sex life, or even if we don’t have one, or if we have one that doesn’t involve another person ... or in fact even if we have no sex life at all, we probably still need to include our sexuality in our Dharma practice. It’s not only about what we are restraining ourselves from doing, but how much honesty and positive mental states we are bringing to the situation of our life.

We all can practice the positive form of this precept: With stillness, simplicity and contentment, I purify my body. I love this trinity, find it very beautiful. So we do this, we do stillness, simplicity and contentment, by endeavoring to transform our relationship to objects of desire. For me the main idea here is simplicity.

Simplicity doesn’t mean that there’s not much there. It’s that what’s there is unified. So a good start would be to make sure our sex lives are as simple, as unfettered, as honest as possible. If we feel guilt, which is a form of self-violence, we need to see into that more and more as well. Guilt makes things complicated, in fact obliterates stillness, simplicity and contentment. Guilt can add to unskillful behavior because it makes looking honestly at what we’re doing too painful, so we don’t look at it, we don’t take responsibility for it, 58

we’re defensive, we want everything we do to be OK. But it’s not, and that’s fine, we just have to honestly acknowledge it, and move on from it. Contentment is important as well, with whatever situation we find ourselves in. Many of us suffer from discontent or restlessness when we are in a relationship, and also when we are not.

The third precept of Buddhism addresses sexuality. There’s a lot of traditional stuff that may be of historical interest – for example apparently the vinaya or monastic code states that monks aren’t allowed to have sex with women or men or fruit or mud. The precept for lay people in its negative form is traditionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. I’m not going to get much into the historical interpretations here. I don’t find it all that useful.

The precept says: I undertake the training to abstain from sexual misconduct, or I undertake the training to abstain from harming through sexuality.

Positively: With stillness, simplicity and contentment, I purify my body.

Perhaps this is just my particular kink, but I think stillness, simplicity and contentment are very sexy.

Anyway, we can look at how we relate to our desire. This is a key thing. We need to relate to our desire very dynamically, as the ground for awakening. It’s what we’re doing. It’s what we’ve got.

The Zen hermit Ikkyu says: Don’t hesitate – get laid – that’s wisdom.

Sitting around chanting – what crap.

Ikkyu was an unusual character in Buddhist history. He was really into sex. He wrote poetry about genitals.

Otherwise, Buddhism doesn’t seem to have much to say about sex or relationships. Even the horrifically titled If the Buddha Dated didn’t have that much advice specifically about relationships.

My own relationships on the grand scale of things have probably not been particularly bad, but all I think of when I think of them are painful things, things that didn’t work, imbalance, the pain of separation, the pain of non-separation, feeling like I was stuck in a role that I didn’t want to be in and I didn’t know how I even got into and couldn’t seem to extract myself from, disillusionment, tension. I have also noticed that when I was in a committed relationship, my relationship to other people was simpler. Of course, that doesn’t work for everyone. For me it was simpler, I think my relationships with friends probably also were more superficial than they are now. I became more friendly, more open to other people, at least some people, after I was divorced, which was less than two years ago. I’ve also noticed that when other people break up with someone, they are 59

noticeably friendlier, seem more open to other people. I’ve noticed that often if someone starts coming here and they’re single but then they get into a relationship, we may never see them again, or not until they break up. But perhaps I over-generalize.

Advice?

Perhaps when we check in about our practice – which some of us do rather a lot! – we should check in about our sex life or our romantic life. It’s such a huge part of our experience. I think if we are practicing within the context of a sexual relationship, we need to make sure we don’t let things slide, that we proactively work out disharmonies, that we don’t let resentment poison our relationship. Finding ways to appreciate our partner.

Mainly I think we all need to work more and more on taking responsibility for our mental states. Work on growing up.

We need to practice contentment, or at least awareness of contentment level, whether we are in a relationship or not. If we are never satisfied, then begin to take responsibility for that. We can at least know that’s a tendency we have. Women, especially young women, spend an enormous amount of emotional energy fretting about being attractive, very critical of our own bodies. We might be better served by putting effort and energy into loving ourselves more completely than by looking for someone to tell us we’re OK. There may be a male version of this. If there is I hope we hear about it next week.

So these are some things we can do to abstain from sexual misconduct. We don’t want too high a standard either. We need to safeguard ourselves from being crushed by our own ideals. A friend of mine said recently that he was interested in sex as a way to express love with his body. This is a beautiful way to think about our relationships. At the end of the day we don’t have to go by what we think other people’s standards are, or what we think the standards of Buddhism are. We can trust what feels important to us, and in a way, trying to stay true to that.

Appreciation without Need It was understood, it was assumed, in the day of the Buddha that a celibate lifestyle is most conducive to spiritual development. You could say that was to do with the culture and the lack of birth control, but probably that’s not all there was to it. Yet there is so little writing or information about brahmacarya as it’s called in the Buddhist tradition. Why? Because almost no one is interested in it. Most people who happen to be celibate don’t want to be. True, but there have been a lot of celibates, a lot of monastics, in the history of Buddhism, and sometimes that must have been interesting, sometimes it must have been difficult, sometimes there was failure. There must have been a lot of joy too. But we don’t want to think about it too much, I guess. Someone in the traditional texts apparently comments that trying to be chaste is like trying to build a 60

fence in the ocean. Yet all major and many minor religions see or at least saw the benefit of sexual abstinence.

It’s perhaps an alien concept, especially perhaps from a Protestant culture perspective.

Our Order does not require a celibate or any other particular lifestyle, but rather emphasizes the primacy of commitment to, and faith in, Buddhist ideals. We do have an option for Order members who wish to take on brahmacarya, as it’s called, as a vow and a formal practice – they do a simple ceremony and wear a gold rather than a white kesa/neck sash. Personally I’ve moved into a phase of celibacy as a deliberate aspect of my practice. And of course not just sex, but everything that goes with it. It would be good I think if conscious celibacy were accepted and acknowledged as a lifestyle choice in our culture. I feel supportive of those who want to pursue a sexual relationship as their practice unfolds in that way. I would also like to be supported as someone who wants to at least try to do something different.

I grew up in what you could call a sex positive environment. Perhaps it was a bit too positive! Still, the message I got in childhood that I’m sure many of us got was that sexual or romantic relationships would make me happy – but they have not. I suppose they have for moments here and there. I am aware that many people’s relationships are much more satisfying than mine have been. I’ve poured energy and time into relationships. My current interest in brahmacarya is really about being ready to shift my energies more into areas of life that I find very satisfying. I think I’ve kind of repressed an urge in me essentially to become a nun, and when I have repressed that wish in the past I had a really cynical attitude about relationships which I think or hope has changed now. I think I had that attitude because I wasn’t doing what I needed to do. I was too bound up in the habit of being in a relationship.

So far this is about what one is not doing, but there is another side. It is no accident that the Sanskrit word for what we call celibacy is brahmacarya, which literally means faring, practicing, or living like Brahma, that is, not merely abstaining from sexual activity but transcending the sexual dimorphism on which sexual activity and desire are based. According to this, celibacy or brahmacarya is a transcendence of gender. It’s associated with bliss, especially the bliss of meditative absorption or jhana. To me this seems pretty idealistic, or it’s probably just that people who practice brahmacarya tend to be more advanced or at least more disciplined than I am. Anyway my experience (only about 6 months) of celibacy, of sexual abstinence, though it’s been fairly short term so far, hasn’t really been all about bliss and overcoming sexual dimorphism etc. On the other hand my experience has not been just frustrated desire either. Rather I’ve been feeling more alive. I feel like there’s somehow more life there. Yes, feeling more alive, feeling more aware. I’ve become more involved with other people, I’m trying to understand what harmony is. I’m more aware of craving, sexual desire but not only that – more aware of a craving for love. Seeing more of the channels that craving flows into. It’s been a complex and kind of fascinating exploration for me.

61

Sometimes I am reminded of what Ann Lamott said, something like, My mind is like a bad neighborhood, I wouldn’t want to go there alone. My mind sometimes is a bad neighborhood. It is not all light and bliss and transcendence of sexual dimorphism. The challenge is not only about what I stop doing, but what I do instead. It requires a lot of both discipline and creativity. I don’t know if I’ve got enough of it for the long term. I have a fear of being really creepy and sort of vibing people all the time without realizing it. I have an agreement with a friend that if that happens she will tell me. I invite all you to tell me as well.

I notice my grasping at things, it’s just a little subtler. Not that this was subtle but here’s a funny thing that happened recently. A few months ago I was in a restaurant with a friend, and a woman mariachi came in.

She had a hauntingly beautiful voice. Kind of low and raspy yet at other times beautifully high. Anyway she was kind of a long way off from me but I found that for some reason I could not look at her. When I finally managed to turn toward her there was some kind of tractor beam between us which I again had to turn away from. I said to my friend, I was just in a tunnel with that mariachi singer. My friend said, yes, you were. She had somehow seen it too. I didn’t feel any craving or attachment afterwards or need for anything to continue, just found the whole thing rather extraordinary.

So I get this feeling of being in love or crushed out on someone, but lately it always feels more often like appreciation, not need. I find that I can have a moment of delight and then let it go immediately, without effort, without craving. In the past had I found myself in a pheromone tunnel with someone I probably would have felt that the interaction had some kind of deeper meaning or was a connection that should be explored.

Now I just enjoy it, and move on when the time comes.

But obviously there are dangers of brahmacarya gone wrong. Sangharakshita says elsewhere: Celibacy is unhealthy when it is too much of a discipline, when it results in the suppression, not just of one’s sexual feelings, but even of one’s emotions. That suppression can make one quite bitter and intolerant. I noticed this very clearly in the case of at least a couple of [Order members] when they were anagarikas [meaning they had taken a vow of celibacy]. It was quite obvious that the suppression of their sexual feelings resulted in the suppression of their kinder feelings, their human sympathies, and this came out in their quite cruel treatment of some people, and having rather harsh, negative attitude, in certain respects. This is a common phenomenon among celibates.

And there are the scandals in the Catholic Church we hear so much about lately. There are yet more examples of celibacy gone wrong. When asked about becoming celibate Bhante says he always encourages people to think about it more. For me, the goal is not to be sexless or to have no desire ... but to just appreciate, without 62

need. When that’s not possible, to appreciate and be aware of the grasping. Then at times when grasping takes over somehow, we are aware of that, and we try to minimize harm to other people and ourselves, try to see how much work, how much energy, how much effort we expend to try to satisfy ourselves.

The Love That Never Fails Before his awakening the Buddha tried a path of absolute submission of the body. After nearly dying, he realized that the body is the vehicle for awakening. We have a somewhat conflicted relationship to our body anyway, especially when something isn’t working properly. Our body does not always conform to our desires.

We can influence our body but we are not in any way in control of it. We cannot control biology. So what is the right attitude?

The ideal is that we work directly and honestly with thirst, with craving – through meditation, though true spiritual fellowship. The ideal is to see all people as a family member, as a beloved family member. Ideally we do not expect someone to satisfy us, to save us, to love us. Ideally we feel complete – stillness, simplicity, contentment. But, of course, we don’t feel complete, in fact sometimes we can feel quite broken.

Tejananda says, ‘What we long for is the love that never fails.’ This is perhaps our deepest heart wish.

Conditioned or fabricated love always fails. That’s its nature. What doesn’t fail is what’s beyond conditions: the True Refuge ... the awakened heart. Even in terms of our ordinary experience, the all-pervading compassionate nature is here and now as sensitivity. We are sensitive – sensitivity is our nature. This is why we can experience both pleasure and suffering. Our longing for unconditional and unfailing love is something very deep within us and at root it is genuine (not delusive). It’s a longing to return to the original sensitivity of our nature outside of dualistic distinctions. This longing is something we can get neurotic about, or we can cherish it as the seed of ...the Awakening Heart/Mind.

So this is the love that never fails. Isn’t this what we are all after? This is what we share. We can get all hung up about sex and love and what it all means and what we should be doing and what other people should be doing, and why certain things are wrong and others are right. We can help turn the wheel of suffering that will just end up crushing us. If you think about it, this longing, the longing for the love that never fails, is all that matters. So then the real question becomes, what will we do with that longing? How can we work more creatively with that longing? How can we stay in touch with that longing? How can we see it clearly and resist the impulse to drown it by trying to satisfy our craving, by chasing the objects of our desires. How can we manifest and express more love? More appreciation? How can we relate to people less out of craving and more out of compassion? We can ask ourselves, what is the longing for the love that never fails?

63

I’ll end with something by Pema Chodron, who says, Sometimes [our] broken heart gives birth to anxiety and panic, sometimes to anger, resentment, and blame. But under the hardness of that armor there is the tenderness of genuine sadness. This is our link with all those who have ever loved. This genuine heart of sadness can teach us great compassion. It can humble us when we’re arrogant and soften us when we are unkind. It awakens us when we prefer to sleep and pierces through our indifference. This continual ache of the heart is a blessing that, when accepted fully, can be shared with all.

Article about an Anagarika Ceremony In August 2008, an Order member wrote an article in our order journal about his anagarika ceremony; he declined to have it shared with a wider audience. In the article he pointed out that there is confusion and lack of definition in the Order about what it means to be an anagarika, specifically around whether or not it’s a precept or a vow, and whether or not it includes additional precepts or vows of fewness of possessions, careerlessness, and homelessness.

Response – Smritiratna October 2008 ___’s article appeared in August Shabda and like him I have found great benefits in the anagarika life, having lived it now for seven years. I’ll speak of that shortly, but first I have to correct some of ___’s points about the anagarika vow. Having pointed out to him some mistakes in his article, he is happy for me to correct them here.

Bhante’s definitive text on the anagarika vow appears on page 49 of Forty-Three Years Ago (1993): ‘Though the WBO anagarika takes the vow of chastity he is not vowed to fewness of possessions, simplicity of lifestyle, careerlessness, or community living, and is not, therefore, a monk in the sense in which I define the term.

Chastity being the fons et origo [source and origin] of the other vows, however, the anagarika will have a natural tendency to live in the kind of way that is envisaged by these vows, simply because he is practicing chastity. He will have a natural tendency to live as a monk. When I say that I would like to see more monks in the Western Buddhist Order it is the fact that anagarikahood has this tendency that I have in mind, rather than the formal taking, by the individual anagarika, of (monastic) vows other than that of chastity.’

64

___ spoke of a homelessness precept but as you can see, homelessness is not mentioned. Furthermore, there is only one anagarika vow taken at the ceremony, by the recitation of the abrahmacarya veramani sikkhapadam.

However, Bhante expects those other four aspects of the monastic lifestyle will tend naturally to emerge in the life of one vowed to chastity. I have discussed this with Suvajra who led ___’s ceremony and he agrees. He said in that the Ten Precepts at ordination are taken as vows, the anagarika ceremony re-affirms them but with the abrahmacarya veramani vow in third place. Then a lifestyle that features fewness of possessions, simplicity of lifestyle, careerlessness and community living will tend to follow. For an explanation of this, read pages 42-49 of Forty-Three Years Ago. It was our founder who arranged for WBO anagarikas to wear the yellow kesa, even the yellow robe if they wish. He has always insisted this does not represent any higher ordination, but it shows how highly he values this lifestyle, of chastity tending towards simplicity and a natural attraction to single-sex community-living.

Most or all of our current anagarikas are middle-aged or older; 32 female and 16 male. My impression is that the men tend to find it harder to sustain chastity than do the women, on average. But all anagarikas have the challenge of responding to Bhante’s exhortations to practice simplicity of lifestyle, fewness of possessions, careerlessness and community living.

Suvajra recently commented that those four could well be the aspiration of any Order member who wishes to further their practice of ‘Stillness, Simplicity and Contentment’. Varadakini made a similar point in her May Shabda article. You don’t have to be an anagarika.

However, brahmacarya has helped me to simplify my life and I became an anagarika to make that brahmacarya visible. In the past, sex took up too much of my energies. Looking for a partner was often a mental preoccupation. Then maintaining a sexual relationship would take up far too much time, energy, money and hassle. There was always the risk of pregnancy too. When I finally and decisively dropped all that in, August 1996 at Dhanakosa [retreat center], it was liberating. Now I do not find it easy to sustain body-speech-mind chastity. To do so I need regular exercise, chi kung, communion with natural beauty, periods of seclusion from the opposite sex (though I have many female friends), adequate meditation, devotions at bedtime and so on.

But most of these also support my Going for Refuge. Most importantly of all, when I sustain chastity in this way, I can rally my energies behind the single-minded pursuit of enlightenment for the sake of all. Two years ago at Guhyaloka [retreat center], I had a passion for this that never left me day or night for three months. I shall be returning there next Tuesday for another three months and have little doubt that passion will be back.

This brings me to something we all have in common as Order members. We have all dedicated ourselves to 65

enlightenment for the sake of all. Let us not lose sight of this. Everything I have written above is only a means to that end/beginning.

Response – Dayachitta From an online Order forum, August 2008 A thought that came to me reading this thread: as human beings we are all connected – think Indra’s net – and communicate, and we all affect each other.

Even if we’re homeless anagarikas we will still need the support of others to provide us with food and clothing at the very least as well as to give us human, let alone spiritual, companionship.

The spiritual companionship of an anagarika at its most pared down taking the form of moving away from attachment to certain types of interactions with other people/one’s self, but there must still be an attachment to being defined as an anagarika, i.e., having a plugged-in sense of knowing who we are in relation to other non-anagarikas.

Sex (being one of the most talked about aspects of anagarika-hood) is a form of communication which probably needs to be ethically refined for most of us, as do other forms of communication, most probably!

So why not regard anagarika-hood as a specialised practice that a person chooses to do according to their current area of concern, focusing on particular areas of one’s life that need to be addressed?

Why the constant preoccupation with status attached to different forms of spiritual practice? If we have the ability to be conscious and honest about our motives in wanting to practice in a certain way, e.g., be an anagarika or not, then hopefully we’ll be doing what we need to be doing at any particular time.

It’s basically a private decision but one which needs to be taken with the awareness that others will be affected by this decision, so it cannot ever entirely be private or personally advantageous. Koan ...

66

The Community of Anagarikas Smritiratna has been editing Anagarika News, a biannual emailing, since 2006. It includes announcements, a current list of anagarikas and where they are, and an editorial written by Smritiratna called ‘Personal News and Reflections’. This is written partly to evoke similar news and reflections from others, who may then respond with emails of their own (each one sent worldwide to all participating anagarikas). Thus much of the email conversations between anagarikas never appear in Anagarika News itself.

If you do not love the Dharma passionately, the life of sexual renunciation or brahmacarya will be a real struggle.

Sangharakshita, The Yogi’s Joy

Personal Reports by Order Members Parami

March, 2010 I tend to fall in love, have strong sexual attraction, and at times that’s made me feel like masturbating. This has been a working ground. Sometimes love and sexual attraction coincide, and sometimes not. Sometimes I want to be next to someone or sit next to them, but it’s not sexual. All this is also working ground. Being an anagarika makes it clear that when those things happen, they just happen. I have masturbated a couple of times since I’ve been an anagarika (8 years), and felt it as a breach of the vow. I’ve confessed and moved on.

It’s been a couple of years now. There is something useful about the energy of masturbation, and being able to access that energy in another way.

I fell in love quite hard a couple of years ago. I was in a vulnerable state, having a lot of childhood memories.

I never thought, maybe I’ll quit being an anagarika. I thought, I’m so pleased I’m an anagarika. I’m more interested in being an anagarika than in following up an attraction. I love being an anagarika. It gives me a great sense of freedom. If I were to start actually thinking, would I want to get involved with this person? Are they interested?...That would not feel like freedom. It would definitely feel like distraction at best and bondage and a feeling of being trapped at worst.

A couple of years ago, when I was traveling I was invited to a Mardi Gras party. I thought, I could go, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal ... but in the end I didn’t go to the party. It’s just not where I want to put my 67

energy. I want to have a good time, but felt it wouldn’t have been just having a dance, there would have been subtext. I don’t see dancing as a problem – in fact I love dancing. On that occasion it just felt like the invitation could have had a bit more to it and I very clearly did not want to put myself into that situation.

The couple of times I did masturbate happened when I was in a particular state ... tired but wired you could say. Restless in my body. When I have broken the precept in the past, sometimes that was the state I was in. I realise that in a way that state is telling me something else about what is going on for me. Why have I gotten into this state? And I find that, if I don’t automatically act on it, it increases my awareness of the state I’m in, and the temptation to find a quick easy fix. I am forced to look beyond the state to find out what is really going on. This is a really valuable part of being an anagarika for me.

Of course, being an anagarika is not only about sex – or lack of it. It is freedom on all sorts of levels. It is about looking at my preferences in all areas from the most simple (what cup I drink out of, where I sit in the shrine room) to the most complex where I really see how I want the universe to behave in a way that suits little ole me. For me surrender is a strong part of my practice as an anagarika. Surrender in the end to the Bodhicitta, to my desire to be a clean clear channel for the forces of good. Maybe that sounds grandiose but there you have it. Works for me. Renunciation is the basis of Bodhicitta – I’m convinced of that – for me anyway. And my anagarika vow keeps renunciation alive for me. I see it as much about the mind precepts as about the third precept.

Smritiratna

From Anagarika News, January 2009 1. Fantasies As we all know, sexual or romantic fantasies can be very absorbing, with vivid images and intense emotional engagement. As Bhante points out in the Ten Pillars of Buddhism, our eighth precept, abhijjha veramani, contains jha as in jhana (absorption). This seems to recognize just how absorbing they can be. No wonder they exert such a strong influence on our minds. Trouble is, they can be so persistent sometimes, can’t they?

Well from what I hear, most male anagarikas go on being harassed by occasional sex fantasies long after their female anagarika age peers have largely lost interest in sex. But do other kinds of fantasy then take over, dharmacharinis?

As for myself, well, I can be free of sex fantasies for weeks on end but then, for a spell, get harassed every night. At such times I don’t blame myself for having them, but I do try not to indulge. Here are two things 68

that I have been finding helpful. The first I call “Assault of Mara” and the second, “No false views”. The Mara approach is like the sky-like attitude. You regard the fantasies as coming from Mara (crafty will of the primitive mind) then you let them just pass by, like images on a screen. You simply remain aloof, just as Siddhartha remained aloof on that full moon night. The “No false views” response goes like this: “Okay, I can’t stop these fantasies coming into in my mind. But I shall turn them into a reflection on Reality – true to my Tenth Precept. I shall remember that: (i) My actions in the fantasy would have consequences, both for the others involved and for me. (ii) The mental and physical health of everybody in the fantasy is fragile. My actions in the fantasy could undermine it. (iii) Everyone in the fantasy is capable of Buddhahood. My actions in the fantasy could hinder that.” I have found that fantasies viewed realistically like this soon peter out. For one thing, they’re just no fun! But more important, they’re now cultivating wisdom instead of perpetuating false views.

2. Loneliness Towards the end of my three months on retreat at Guhyaloka last Autumn, I was reflecting on loneliness. It may surprise you that I sometimes felt lonely there, surrounded as I was by a dozen or so dharmacharis. But yes, sometimes I did, especially during the two week silent period in our third month. The feeling vanished as soon as our silent period ended and we were conversing again. However, while the loneliness lasted I was able to see that ultimately it was a longing for interconnection, for a complete interpenetration with all life, with everything. I came to regard the pain of loneliness as essentially the pain of experiencing myself as separate. I discovered that by practicing a metta bhavana that culminated in a six element contemplation that dissolved the self-other divide altogether, the loneliness also dissolved. So I came to regard loneliness as essentially dukkha: the pain of the unenlightened state ... and I came to see that longing for interpenetration, for communion with everything, as essentially bodhicitta, the longing for Bodhi, its ultimate consummation.

Long before I joined our sangha, my strongest experiences of interpenetration were, firstly, mystical intimations of oneness whilst in the midst of nature and, secondly, my early experiences of sex – which catapulted me into a euphoric love of everything and everybody. The sex felt mystical too – at first – though it soon got snared up in complex relationship difficulties and anguish. Years later, having abandoned sex, I have come to rely on spiritual friendship and more especially on meditation, as better gateways into that universal communion. But I find that even the most delightful times of spiritual friendship cannot fully satisfy, cannot altogether assuage loneliness. It is therefore reassuring to read Bhante’s reflections in his book on hermit Milarepa, The Yogi’s Joy: So, although you may live for years side by side with someone who is very dear to you, your very 69

closeness may help you to see that you are really on your own. This is the kind of insight that can emerge from being aware and mindful when you are with another person. There can be warmth and companionship, but no amount of good friendship can – or should – alleviate the existential loneliness of conditioned existence. If companionship does help you to forget it, that isn’t really a good thing.

We should not expect from others more than they are able to give. True spiritual friendship fosters communication in its most mature sense: mutual responsiveness across a chasm. Even though you share a heartfelt ideal, you are both aware that as long as there is a sense of separate selfhood, you will always feel an element of loneliness, when you are on your own and even when you are with a friend. [pp.15-16] Bhante’s reflections here arose from consideration of Milarepa’s intense longings to see his spiritual friends, dwell with them again and converse. Well, he lived alone, and this must be a theme for many a hermit. It recurs over and over in the poems of hermit Ryokan too – even though Ryokan had chosen to live alone. He could have stayed in the monastery but at the age of 40, he found that little hut, “Gogo-an”, near to a village, then lived there as a hermit.

Though no other person dwells with him, Ryokan, by sitting all day with his loneliness, seems at last to feel a companionship with the moon, the flowers, the maple trees. Those trees live with him, sharing the same space, the same hillside. Having sat all day with those maple trees, perhaps he has finally lost the sense of ever having been separate from them. Finally he is living with them, communing with them, as if they are his friends. Maybe that’s why I hardly ever feel lonely here in Temple Cabin. I can hear the stream flowing and the wind blowing as I write. When I go out for a pee I lean again on that same familiar tree. The trees and I are living here together. We are companions. Of course I also have you to write to, and other friends that I converse with by email and sometimes by mobile telephone. Perhaps all this communication slakes my thirst for connection all too easily. Our silent period at Guhyaloka, by comparison, was an act of renunciation: no phone calls, no email, no conversations, no wonder the loneliness was keenly felt. But there’s an opportunity in that, to see a little more deeply into the ultimate nature of loneliness, that longing which no amount of communication can possibly satisfy, that longing whose ultimate fulfillment lies only in Awakening, the ultimate consummation.

Dharmika March 2010

My ‘screensaver’ shows a black backdrop with many star-like white dots coming towards one, they become 70

more prominent as they increase in size, and then they fall off the screen. Towards the end of the Diamond Sutra, we are advised to look upon this world: ‘As a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream’, while Shelley tells us ‘Worlds on worlds are rolling ever, from creation to decay, like the bubbles on a river, sparkling, bursting, borne away’. Thus I am surprised that despite this good advice, all too often I find myself often caught up in the quagmire of daily struggles, to keep the hindrances at bay and remain at least fairly positive and creative.

At the National Order Weekend Bodhiketu gave a gentle talk about entering meditative states. He alluded to ‘writer’s block’ and reminded us that one needs to have a free-flow of open experience as well as critique. He mentioned being aware of certain signs, such as posture and breathing, which can indicate moving towards first dhyana (integration). When he talked about second dhyana (inspiration), I was reminded of an occasion when I visited a desolate ancient stone circle, and subsequently sat at the foot of a stone in the half-lotus on the ground, then quite soon, unexpectedly had a sense of a flow of energy coming up from below. Afterwards as I was meandering away, a woman approached me from nowhere, and in short wanted to know what had happened while I was sitting there, and so I admitted the full details. I was also interested when Bodhiketu mentioned the third dhyana (permeation) may be suffused with ecstasy and bliss, or a sense of anticipation and then actuality.

Later that weekend Narasiha brightly asked me some questions about being an anagarika. In that respect, I started practicing brahmacarya (physical and mental chastity) when I began doing naked life modelling (which was about four years before I was ordained in 1993). Anagarikas are varied; some purr if touched, while others may recoil. Myself, I enjoy intimate physical contact with friends, and I don’t feel this in any way detracts from physically and mentally observing chastity (i.e. refraining from deliberate sexual activity). As an anagarika I don’t in any way despise sexuality, just as a healthy person doesn’t despise food or sleep. Repression can be unhealthy, suppression may be healthy if mainly motivated by moving into the light rather than backing away from shadows. Perhaps one day I may dwell more in the brahma viharas, but I think in my case, it’s more a matter of trying to be less greedy, hateful and deluded.

I don’t consider my views re sexuality to be jaundiced or embittered, and partly to illustrate that point I elaborated to Narasiha that the fifth and about last time I had full intercourse, I was about 24. Then in the sexy seventies, Linda, an American art student, came into a bohemian Hampstead room at about midday, and rather like in an erotic Levi jeans advert, quite unannounced and in no time at all, had my zip down and seduced me. What interested me was that while she looked down at me in that free-flowing moment, our eyes just seemed to melt into each other’s, and she smiled like she had another conquest. Yet there was nothing negative about it, in fact it was so positive that it came up as an image in relation to permeation (the third 71

dhyana) and that sense of anticipation and then fulfillment, which of course in that context didn’t last. Some days later Linda (as a tease) asserted she was pregnant. Thus, briefly satisfying as the experience was, I decided I didn’t need to try and repeat it, and instead opted to be more circumspect in future.

Whether or not an anagarika, I imagine myself and all Order members to be intermittently moving in the direction of brahmacarya. Desire easily becomes a sticky trap, the positive nidanas can loosen the glue of our selfhood and brahmacarya can be a helpful contributing factor when approached skillfully. As to where anagarikas take their lead, I do recall at a Q&A session with Bhante in Norwich, that after asking Bhante some general questions, I suddenly decided to ask a ‘silly’ question. The gist of that question was: “Bhante, is there in the FWBO, or anywhere in the Buddhist world some sort of authority figure, who decides what anagarikas should or should not be doing?” And his emphatic answer was “No, there isn’t!” As aspiring and expiring individuals, we listen and learn from our own conscience, as well as from the principles exemplified in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

Manjuvajra October 2009 On the last evening of the Ordination course at Guhyaloka during the puja which was led by Saddhaloka I took the brahmacarya precept and became an anagarika. This was the culmination of several years’ serious consideration and before the ceremony I said why I was taking this step. I explained that it was not because I wanted to give up sex particularly – actually I have very much enjoyed sex and my relationships with women – but I wanted to make a declaration to myself and others that I intend to devote myself to the practice of renunciation and pursuit of Freedom. So I was taking this step from a very positive motivation, not for negative reasons.

This whole process started almost nine years ago when my last lady-friend ended our relationship for a perfectly good reason that I could not but accept. It was painful and as usual I thought in terms of finding another woman as soon as possible – but because of various circumstances I was placed in a position where I experienced the grief of loss very strongly but at the same time I felt the relief of being free from the old emotional entanglements even though they were often pleasurable. One evening after a puja at Padmaloka [retreat center] I went to my room and felt a delightful contentment because I didn’t have to think about phoning or writing an e-mail. I could do what I wanted. That experience of being emotionally disentangled became a constant reference over the next few years especially when I was on retreat at Guyhaloka.

72

Slowly I came to realise that freedom and contentment were actually more enjoyable than the undoubted pleasures of sexual entanglement. One day I saw quite clearly that all desire was painful and that contentment was the greatest, the deepest happiness. My desire to have a woman in my life waned, but I still didn’t want to shut the door to the occasional romantic interlude. However, I am past my prime and I live in the mountains, so very little happened and for the last several years I have been happily content to leave my sexual life behind me. For a few years I held on to thinking that I didn’t want to completely close the door, but my inspiration for a liberated life has grown, as has the desire to actually commit myself to it. I have had no doubts that this is the life I want to follow. The slight resistance was not fading away completely, so in the end I decided to take the step anyway and see what happened.

As I put the yellow kesa on during the ceremony I felt a wave of confidence in the spiritual life I was leading the Dharma and the practices I have been taught, my teacher and the Order I belong to. The next day I felt very spacious inside – as if I was a bright empty space. I felt light and happy.

I feel increasingly happy with the step I have taken. There are clearly other realms of attachment that I need to work on – ambition, status, pride and possessions, for example, but I feel confident that the rewards of renunciation far outweigh other possible gains. To fly with the dakinis cannot be compared with the dusty pleasures of the world. My attention has been focused on Milarepa for the past few years and I feel a very strong inner connection with him. May he protect me.

Even a few years ago I would have considered taking this step unthinkable but it has happened quite naturally.

However I do not think I would have made this journey without Bhante’s teaching and encouragement even though there were times when I resisted it intensely. For this, as for most of the things in my life, I am deeply grateful to him.

Bodhiketu February, 2009 I remember a meal we had with Bhante some years ago, in the men’s community above the Manchester Center when it was still in Chorlton. There were five or six anagarikas living in the community, in addition to various keen brahmacarins. It had been quiet for a while and then Bhante said: ‘Of course, there is one thing more important than brahmacarya.’ Then he returned to his food and a pregnant silence ensued.

Now as a mitra I felt no obligation to hazard a guess, educated or not, and so could sit back and enjoy the 73

spectacle. Various suggestions were proffered (I won’t reveal who said what) but none met with anything more than a raised eyebrow. Finally Bhante said: ‘Clear thinking is more important.’ As I recall, a very interesting discussion followed.

Kamalashila January, 2007 I stopped being an anagarika two years ago, which was a big decision. The decision itself wasn’t difficult. I had not been inspired by brahmacarya for several years even before going on retreat; I was on automatic and it didn’t seem to make that much difference to my internal experience. However, it did make working closely with ‘ordinary’ people strange. Maybe monks should stay in the monastery; anagarikas have to cope with projection which gets badly in the way, however much I try to undercut the projection. People can’t not make wrong assumptions about where you are coming from – which possibly does them some good, if they think you are a holy person. But you never fully have their trust, since they can always take refuge in the thought, ‘yes, but you don’t understand what it’s like for me.’ Their reasons for thinking that might range from ‘because you don’t know what it’s like to have a partner’, via ‘because you are on another planet’ to ‘because you think you are superior to me’. Now, I can live with all of that, but I felt I wanted to go out more to people. I wanted to stop withdrawing behind a holy screen every so often.

For me the great advantage of brahmacarya is the increased access to happiness and skillful mental states that you get from the simplicity. But I have had a lot of brahmacarya in my life and I felt my practice was flexible and strong enough for me to develop those qualities without that support. Of course I had to take the step in real life, and find out what that actually entailed. It’s different on both sides of the holy screen.

With brahmacarya there are, it seems to me, disadvantages from a teaching point of view. You tend to attract people who look up to you for the wrong reasons. You don’t always have to relate to people like that, but it gets complicated because your avoidance strategies are going to be misunderstood as well. I think you can also get to a point where the access to happiness which brahmacarya gives you becomes the equivalent of getting stuck in the dhyanas. In other words you aren’t using the advantage of the extra happiness for dharma purposes – you’re just coasting on the security it provides. I imagine a lot of monks get themselves in that unfortunate position. You could say that brahmacarya becomes institutionalised when it has become a deep attachment, not only to a privileged lifestyle, but to a set of hard views of what my spiritual life is all about. This can isolate you from others and deprive you of any independence of thought. (There is a non-brahmacarya version 74

of this as well, of course.) Hence my descent from the heights of brahmacarya. The decision was easy, but the ramifications were huge, because this time it needed to be a decision for life. No more experimentation.

Of course I immediately fell in love and wasted vast energy on an unworkable and confidence-draining first love pursuit, my first since the end of the eighties. It made me anxious that not only am I too lacking in experience for this, at 57 I am getting too old. But once the attachment started fading, I discovered to my relief that even at my advanced age, I am attractive! Then inevitably, due to sexual naivety resulting from my upbringing in single sex community, I unskillfully exploited this in certain respects (I now believe). I think I’m over that now, but the ethics were worth going into and confessing to myself. If you want the happy ending, I’m now very pleased to be in a relationship, and we plan to live together in some kind of community from next year.

75

How to Formally Become an Anagarika Preparation (from June 1993)

Any of those Dharmacharis not ordained by me personally who wish to become anagarikas should first discuss the matter with their Chapter, their Kalyana Mitras and their Private Preceptor. They should then put their request to their Public Preceptor who, having consulted with another Public Preceptor, will decide whether it is appropriate for the ceremony to take place and will arrange for someone to conduct it, usually a senior anagarika.

The ceremony will consist simply of the giving of the robes or kesa by the leader to the one taking the vow, who will then put on the robe or kesa and recite the Refuges and Precepts, substituting abrahmacharya for kamesumicchachara, before the shrine by himself or herself.to conduct it, usually a senior anagarika. [Note that currently Public Preceptors ask prospective anagarikas to practice chastity for two years prior to making the formal commitment.]

Sangharakshita

Anagarika Ceremony, New Version, July 1995 The first three sections of the Sevenfold Puja are recited, up to and including the Ten Precepts.

One by one, each person taking the vow offers a flower, a candle, and an incense stick which have been provided to the shrine. They then take from the shrine a set of folded yellow robes and a golden kesa, or (if they wish) simply a kesa.

Each person (including those taking only kesas) leaves the room after having made the three offerings.

Outside, those taking robes put on their new robes and kesas, and the others put on their new kesas.

All the participants then re-enter the room together, and sit before the shrine.

All recite, together, the Three Refuges and Ten Precepts, with the abrahmacarya precept in third place.

76

The assembly gives a threefold shout of SADHU! The anagarikas return to their seats in the assembly, and the Sevenfold Puja continues.

Note: The Sevenfold Puja during which the ceremony takes place can be led by any Order member, not necessarily an anagarika. The first three sections of the Sevenfold Puja are recited, up to and including the Ten Precepts.

Only joy will keep us going in the spiritual life.

Sangharakshita, The Yogi’s Joy

77

... Now my heart Turns toward you, awake at last, Penitent, lost in the last Loneliness. Speak to me. Talk To me. Break the black silence.

Speak of a tree full of leaves, Of a flying bird, the new Moon in the sunset, a poem, A book, a person – all the Casual healing speech Of your resonant, quiet voice.

The word freedom. The word peace.

from ‘Loneliness’ by Kenneth Rexroth

78

Miscellaneous Resources Article from the San Francisco Buddhism Examiner (October, 2010) This article was published online by Stephen Colgan at the San Francisco Buddhism Examiner. Stephen Colgan also writes the Psychology and Spirituality Examiner page.

Suvarnaprabha and Satyagandhi on the Practice of Celibacy Recently, as Suvanna Cullen entered a BART station, she heard the voice of Johnny Cash filling the air.

As she descended the escalator, she saw a street performer who sounded just like the legendary singer. Their eyes met and “we looked at each other with total delight”. Ms Cullen, who describes herself as “provisionally celibate” – meaning she has not made a formal vow – remembers what followed: “I felt great! I didn’t need anything!”

At another time in her life she might have wanted more from the contact and wondered “What’s going to happen now?” But, because she is not seeking a sexually intimate relationship, she felt able to completely enjoy the moment and then move on.

Both Ms Cullen (Buddhist name: Suvarnaprabha) and her Australian friend Satyagandhi are ordained members of the Triratna Buddhist Order who are interested in the spiritual benefits of celibacy. Several years ago Satyagandhi took an additional vow as an anagarika (“homeless one”), which means voluntarily vowing to live a simple life including practicing celibacy.

Saytaganghi lives in a rural women’s community in Australia. Ms Cullen is the Creative Director of the San Francisco Buddhist Center, and the Founding Teacher of San Francisco Stress Reduction.

Satyagandhi recalls that her experience of celibacy also began somewhat provisionally. After a relationship ended, she decided there was no room in her life for a new one until her daughter finished school. When that time arrived a few years later, she thought, “Why would I want to have another relationship, this has been the best time of my life!”

The anagarika vow is about living a life that focuses on “stillness, simplicity and contentment” and doesn’t 79

have any sexual activity or relationships. According to Satyagandhi, celibacy “simplifies your life in certain ways. It means going through life as an individual, not as a couple. In a way, it’s about standing your own ground.”

Ms. Cullen says she reached a point where “I didn’t want to put my energy into sexual relationships anymore.

I have friends who are very happy in relationship – I just feel like it’s not my path.” Now she feels she has more energy for other aspects of life – including close friendships. She feels that “there’s a strong ethos in our culture to be in a relationship – the cult of the couple. I think it would be great if there were other models.”

Satyagandhi says that as an anagarika, she is “able to have warm and friendly relationships with people of both sexes.” She feels freed to “love the world around me, to love life – wild, impermanent, ungraspable, unpredictable life.”

Ethical Precepts Order members chant these ten precepts: Panatipata Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Adinnadana Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Kamesu Micchacara Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami [anagarikas: Abrahmacarya Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami] Musavada Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Pharusavaca Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Samphappalapavaca Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Pisunavaca Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Abhijjha Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Byapada Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami Micchadassana Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami sadhu sadhu sadhu [Translation] I undertake to abstain from taking life.

I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given.

I undertake to abstain from harming through sexuality. [anagarikas: I undertake to abstain from non-chastity.]

80

I undertake to abstain from false speech.

I undertake to abstain from harsh speech.

I undertake to abstain from useless speech.

I undertake to abstain from slanderous speech.

I undertake to abstain from covetousness.

I undertake to abstain from animosity.

I undertake to abstain from false views.

Positive Precepts With deeds of loving kindness, I purify my body.

With open-handed generosity, I purify my body.

With stillness, simplicity, and contentment, I purify my body.

With truthful communication, I purify my speech.

With words kindly and gracious, I purify my speech.

With utterance helpful and harmonious, I purify my speech.

Abandoning covetousness for tranquillity, I purify my mind.

Changing hatred into compassion, I purify my mind.

Transforming ignorance into wisdom, I purify my mind.

Brahmacarya – Linguistics and History Shortened slightly from Jayarava’s blog: jayarava.blogspot.com In this post I plan to do a potted history of an idea which I am representing by the phrase “spiritual life” in English which equates with the Sanskrit word brahmacarya (it is the same in Pāli). We can begin with an etymology. Brahmacarya is a compound combining the elements brahma and carya. ‘Brahma’ is the uninflected form of the noun, as we expect in a Sanskrit compound. So it can mean either the transcendent principle of the universe, brahman (neuter tense), or the more concrete manifestation of the creator God, Brahmā (masculine tense). It’s important to realise that these two are not necessarily synonymous. Carya more literally means “going about, wandering, walking or roaming, visiting, driving”, and in its applied sense means “behaviour, conduct; practicing, performing, occupation with, engaging in”. The word brahmacarya is used in relation to a number of ideas, and how we understand it depends to a large extent on what time and place we are talking about.

81

In this early Upanisadic period (also known as the “Late Vedic period”) a Brahmin man is described as going through several stages in life or āśramas (incidental from the same root śram). Women are not part of this picture. Different texts describe different numbers of stages, and some see them not as a sequence but as different possible lifestyles, however all seem to include brahmacarya. Taken as a sequence in the early stage of life one was unmarried and this, even today in India, is synonymous with being celibate. However, celibacy was probably initially incidental for unmarried men, and the importance of this phase of life was that it involved learning and study. The ideal was for a son to study with his father. However some students went to live and study with teachers, and some even wandered from place to place and teacher to teacher.

The object of study was still considered to be the Vedas and their associated rituals, but may have included the śastric branches of knowledge as well such as grammar, mathematics and astrology. Conformation of this basic set up are found in early Buddhist texts which frequently refer to Brahmins as well versed in the Vedas and other Brahminical studies. After this period of learning the Brahmin youth might stay with his teacher, but more usually was expected to return home and marry, produce more sons and in turn educate them in the Brahminical lore and procedures.

The Buddha was to some extent limited in how he got his ideas across by the language of the day. Sometimes he simply used existing terms unchanged (eg. tapas, asceticism) and sometimes he attempted to redefine a word as in the case of dharma and in this case of brahmacarya. In fact the Buddha attempted to totally redefine the concept of what a Brahmin is – linking it to behaviour rather than birthright. Clearly this latter project failed, but we have inherited this word brahmacarya.

In the early Buddhist texts brahmacarya keeps virtually the same reference, but loses any sense of sequence.

Anyone who is undertaking some kind of spiritual or religious training could be referred to as a brahmacarin.

It’s quite a common usage in the canon. All bhikkhus were undertaking brahmacarya because they undertake religious vows, study sacred texts, and undertake various religious and ascetic practices. However at some point – and I’m not sure when this happened – the word came to have the much narrower meaning of ‘chastity’: that is, the abstention from any kind of sexual activity (and the vinaya is explicit and exhaustive in proscribing forms of sex!) It’s ironic that what was originally a mere coincidence because of the rigid social structures which required that there be no sex before marriage, is now the most important feature of the lifestyle ...

To some extent the WBO has revalorised the word, broadening it out again to mean one who doesn’t indulge the pleasures of the senses. Someone who undertakes a vow of brahmacarya does refrain from sexual activity, but also undertakes to avoid over-stimulating themselves in other ways as well. They may also express this by trying to let go of personal preferences. Someone who takes a life vow of brahmacarya is known in our order an an anagarika. This means one (-ka) who does not have (an-) a home (agara).

82

Benefits of Temporary Celibacy

From Wolter, Dwight Lee, Sex & Celibacy: Establishing Balance in Intimate Relationships Through Temporary Abstinence. 1992. 120.

1 I learned to be patient, and to allow relationships and other opportunities to develop in their own time.

2 I learned to delay gratification, which helped me to be less obsessive and compulsive. I found that I didn’t jump into relationships and then wonder how to get out of them.

3 I learned that I was self-sufficient enough so that if I were locked in prison or stranded on an island for twenty years, I could survive quite well by drawing upon my inner resources ... knowing that I can make it if I had to, provides me with a deep feeling of comfort.

4 I learned how to trust my own instincts.

5 I learned how to define my own beliefs and values without giving in to the coercion or persuasion of others.

6 I learned to yield without feeling like I lost a battle.

7 I learned that intimacy, more so than sex, creates a healthy relationship.

8 I learned to love myself, as I learned to consistently act on my own behalf.

9 I learned how to get my power needs met in more creative ways than by manipulating and controlling people.

10 I learned how to say “no” without feeling guilty because I displeased you.

11 I learned that intimacy with others is a byproduct of intimacy with self.

12 I learned that sex is more about spirit than about genitals.

13 I learned that I can have women as friends.

14 I learned how to have male friends.

15 I learned how to communicate so that I don’t have to have sex in order to express “I love you.”

16 I learned that not all attempts at control are bad.

17 I learned better control of my energy.

18 I learned that balance requires control.

19 I learned to gain control of my thoughts and attitudes, as well as my sexual behavior.

20 I learned that not having to be in control is a port of entry for spontaneity and creativity.

83

Questions for Reflection and Discussion 1 What are your main sources of pleasure?

2 What are your main sources of craving? Is there something you could do to bring in more awareness?

3 What is the relationship between love and sex?

4 If you consider brahmacarya a practice

– Why is it a practice for you?

– How does practicing brahmacarya affect your overall practice?

– How does it affect your relationship to people?

5 What are the main conditions that have influenced your views about sexuality?

– Parents?

– Culture?

– Religious background?

– Does irrational guilt figure in your attitude about sexual relationships?

6 How have your views about sexuality changed in the course of your life?

7 If you are in a committed relationship, do you experience contentment?

8 If you are not in a committed relationship, do you experience contentment?

9 Are your connections to your friends as strong as your connection to your partner (whether or not you now have a partner)?

10 Which positive mental states do sexual relationships give rise to? Which negative ones?

11 How important is sex in your life? Has this changed over time?

12 How can we have joyful, healthy sexual lives, while being mindful of the ways in which sex can be harmful?

13 In the context of Buddhist ethics, in what way has your experience in the realm of sex been skillful or unskillful? What are the challenges and rewards of sexual expression?

14 If you are currently in a sexual relationship, do you feel that the relationship supports your practice? Does it ever seem to ‘get in the way’ of practice?

15 If you are currently in a sexual relationship, do you feel that your practice supports the relationship? Does it ever ‘get in the way’ of the relationship?

16 Does the idea of being a monk or nun attractive to you (to some degree)?

17 Have you worked with sexual energy in meditation?

84

Further Reading and Sources Sangharakshita Much of the text in this book was taken from online sources. Freebuddhistaudio.com is an extensive archive of writings and lectures by Sangharakshita and many Order members.

Forty-Three Years Ago http://www.sangharakshita.org/_books/forty-three.pdf

My Relation to the Order http://www.sangharakshita.org/_books/relation-to-the-order.pdf

“Conversations with Bhante,” August, 2009 http://www.sangharakshita.org/interviews/index.html “Sex and the Spiritual Life” – Interview with Sangharakshita in Golden Drum magazine http://fwbodiscussion.blogspot.com/2007/06/sex-and-spiritual-life-interview-with.html

Dharma Life magazine, Summer 1998 http://fwbo.org/articles/sexualevolution.html

Recommended: The Yogi’s Joy Others Wolter, Dwight Lee, Sex & Celibacy: Establishing Balance in Intimate Relationships Through Temporary Abstinence. 1992.

Henepola Gunaratana on celibacy http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com

“Six Kinds of Loneliness” by Pema Chodron (Shambhala Sun)http://www.shambhalasun.com 85

Glossary abrahmacarya The precept or vow taken by anagarikas, “I under take to abstain from non-chastity.” (abrahmacarya veramani sikkhapadam) anagarika (anagārikā, fem., Skt) Literally, homeless one. (Ka – one; an – no; agara – home.)

1) In the Triratna Buddhist Order, an anagarika is an Order member who has taken a vow to indefinitely abstain from sexual behavior. Formally becoming an anagarika means participating in a ceremony in which the Abrahmacarya precept replaces the third precept, and a gold kesa is received. Though they are not part of the anagarika vow, Bhante expects four other aspects of the monastic lifestyle – fewness of possessions, simplicity of lifestyle, careerlessness, and community living – to naturally emerge in the life of one vowed to chastity.

2) In Theravadin Buddhism, the term refers to a lay attendant of a monk. The vinaya restricts monks from many tasks such as handling money or driving, so lay attendants help bridge this gap.

Bhante Lit. Teacher. For members of our order, Sangharakshita. brahmacarya (Skt, Pali brahmacariya) Literally, walking with Brahma, living like a Brahma, divine life, spiritual life. Sangharakshita speaks of it as chastity, not in the sense of mere abstention from sexual activity, but “transcending the sexual dimorphism on which sexual activity and sexual desire are based.” (The Ten Pillars) Guhyaloka A men’s retreat center in Spain. kalyana mitra (Skt) Spiritual friend. kesa The white sash order members wear around their necks. Anagarikas wear a gold kesa.

Order member Ordained member of the Triratna Buddhist Order.

Sangharakshita Founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order (known as the Western Buddhist Order 1967-2010) Sadhu! Well done!

Shabda Monthly reporting-in journal for Order members.

Third Precept “I undertake to abstain from causing harm through sexuality.” (Kamesu Micchacara Veramani Sikkhapadam Samadiyami.) For anagarikas: “I undertake to abstain from non-chastity.” (Abrahmacarya veramani sikkhapadam.)

Triratna Buddhist Order A Buddhist Order founded by Sangharakshita in 1967, formerly known as the Western Buddhist Order.

Vajraloka A retreat center in Wales.

86

Index abrahmacarya precept 12, 37, 65, 76, 80, 86 addiction 34, 44, 45-7, 49, 51, 53-4 ambition 54 anagarika 9, 12-3, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 64-77, 79-80, 82, 86 anagarika ceremony 64-5 anagarika precept 25-6, 37 androgyny 15, 16, 17-8 art 22 arupa dhyana 17 arupaloka 14 asuras 14, 16 Bhante 86; see also Sangharakshita conversation, August 2009 27-8 bhikkhu 9, 10, 35, 82 Bodhiketu 71, 73-4 brahmacarya 15-6, 17-8, 20, 21, 23, 24-6, 27, 41-54, 60, 61, 62-3, 65- 67, 71, 72 brahmaloka 13-4, 17, 23, 28 Buddha, the 5, 13, 20, 22, 29-30, 45, 47, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 63, 69, 82 careerlessness 9, 11, 13, 64 caterpillar 21-3 celibacy 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19-20, 21-3, 27-8, 37-8, 61, 62, 79-80, 82, 83

benefits of temporary 83 chastity 5, 9-10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 64, 65, 71, 76, 82, 86 Chen, Mr 31 Chomei, Kamono 31 community living 9, 10, 11, 33, 36, 38, 41 compassion 63, 64, 81 contentment 14-5, 29, 32, 58-9, 60, 73 cosmology 14-5 craving 22, 29, 38, 45, 46, 56-7, 61, 62, 63, 84 Dayachitta 66 desire 12, 14-5, 18, 19, 20, 22, 38, 43, 44, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 68, 72, 73 Dhammapada 10, 29 Dharmika 70-2 dhyana 10, 15, 16, 17, 40, 49, 71, 74 Diamond Sutra 71 Dogen 56 dukkha 45, 47, 53 Dwight, Lee Wolter 83 egolessness 14 Enlightenment 43, 65 ethics 57, 58 falling in love 62, 67, 75 family life 38-9, 45 fewness of possessions 10, 23, 34, 35, 64, 65 87

fidelity 37 Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) 5, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 50, 52, 54, 72 Gampopa 30-1 gender 17-8, 61 Guhyaloka 65, 69, 70, 72, 86 guilt 22, 34, 36, 38, 39, 55, 58, 83 Henepola, Gunaratna 85 Ikkyu 59 insight 15, 16, 22, 40, 42, 48-9, 50, 51, 52, 54 inspiration 47, 48, 71, 73 Jayarava 81-2 Jewel Ornament of Liberation 30-1 joy 28, 30, 77 kalyana mitra 76, 86 Kamalashila 40-54, 74-5 kamaloka 12, 18, 23, 28 kesa 12, 61, 65, 73, 76, 86 lifestyle 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 32, 36, 37, 40, 44, 48, 58, 60, 61, 65, 74, 82 loneliness 69-70, 78 love 2, 6, 27-8, 29, 34, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 80, 83, 84 Mahagovinda Sutta 13

Manjuvajra 29-31, 72-3 Mara 69 masturbation 67-8 meditation 15-6, 22, 25, 29, 50, 69, 71 Milarepa 30, 69-70, 73 monk 9-13, 20, 22, 55, 59, 64, 74, 84, 86 monogamy 37, 39 nature 20, 69, 70 nuns 57 Paradise Lost 27 Parami 67-8 paramitas 50 Pema Chodron 64 pleasure 2, 5, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 43, 45, 54, 55, 63, 73, 82, 84 precepts 10, 12, 21, 30, 39, 64, 65, 68, 76-7, 80-1 rationalisation 44, 46 renunciation 26, 29-31, 38, 49, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73 rupa dhyana 17

rupaloka 12, 14, 18, 23 Ryokan 31, 70 Sangharakshita 9-28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37-8, 55, 58, 62, 67, 76, 77, 85, 86 Satipatthana Sutta 29 Satyagandhi 79-80 sensitivity 4, 32, 63 sex 5-6, 19, 21, 22, 23-4, 27-8, 34, 35-8, 39, 41-2, 43-6, 47, 49, 52-4, 55, 57, 58, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68-9, 71-2, 75 sexual misconduct, abstention from 12, 14-7, 59, 60 sexual orientation/sexuality 27, 34, 35, 36-7, 42, 43, 44, 47-8, 49, 52, 58 sexual polarization 15, 16, 18 sexual relationships 5-6, 11, 18, 25, 31-3, 36-9, 40-1, 44-7, 49, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 65, 80, 84 Shabda 43, 64, 86 Shambhala Sun 85 simplicity 9, 10, 57, 58, 59, 65, 68, 74, 79-80, 81

88

single sex activities 36, 52 community 17, 65, 75 Smritiratna 64-6, 67, 68-70 spiritual friendship 11, 12, 13-4, 19, 30, 32-3, 36, 37, 39, 45, 49, 53, 59, 69-70, 71, 80, 83, 84 status 12, 66 Subhuti 31-3 Sundarananda 22 Suvarnaprabha 4, 56-64, 79-80 Tejananda 4, 63 The Ten Pillars of Buddhism 14-7, 40, 68, 86 Theravada 6, 10, 11, 12, 86 Triratna Buddhist Order 4, 5, 86 Udana 22 Ugra 29-30 vegetarian 6 vinaya 5, 10, 20, 59, 82, 86 vow 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 38, 41, 54, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 79, 82 wisdom 50