In recent years Sangharakshita, the teacher and founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order has restated the importance of discipleship. But what does it means to be a disciple – in general and in relation to Sangharakshita in particular? How can we acknowledge squarely the difficulties this relationship can contain?
In ‘What is the Western Buddhist Order?’* (2009), Sangharakshita defines the Order as ‘the community of my disciples.’ This is a very strong statement, but what does it mean? Like any relationship, discipleship brings complications and I suggest that no teacher can wholly define from his or her side what the relationship means from the student’s. Sangharakshita’s definition of discipleship can’t be the end of the story. Those like me who are members of the Triratna Buddhist Order need to explore what discipleship means for us, and this exploration must include the difficulties that go with being a disciple of Sangharakshita in particular.
First, let me say that I am happy and proud to be Sangharakshita’s disciple. When I joined the Triratna Buddhist Order I understood that I was committing myself to a particular approach that derived from his guidance and teachings. All Order members do the same and that unites us. The Dharma I know in my bones has come to me through Sangharakshita and going deeper in my Dharma practice usually means going more deeply into his teachings. I have never wanted to graduate from the relationship, as if it were a form of ‘apprenticeship’. That would cut me off from a source of inspiration, challenge and a vision of life and the Dharma that is much larger than my own.
However, over the years my feelings about Sangharakshita have also included more difficult emotions such as disappointment and frustration and I have encountered areas of criticisms and disagreement. I have often felt constrained, for a variety of reasons, from expressing these publicly. However, I don’t think these emotions and views represent a failing on my part as an Order member. Rather, I think we need an expanded view of discipleship that takes them into account.
The Tensions in Discipleship
I believe a degree of tension is inherent in discipleship. We don’t live in a deferential or hierarchical culture, we aren’t all faith-types and in any culture simply following another person may be a form of weakness. Some tension between receptivity and independence – the anxiety of influence – should be expected, and balancing them is challenging. With experience, most of us become more skilled in doing that and members of the Triratna Buddhist Order are fortunate that, as teachers go, Sangharakshita is exceptionally thoughtful about the relationship. Nonetheless, the complexity of our discipleship is likely to increase as we mature in our practice, find our own approaches, make our own interpretations and have more capacity to absorb other influences. Many of our discussions in the Order turn on this, and I think that, as well as promoting unity, we should embrace that complexity.
Problems Specific to Sangharakshita
Next, I think we must acknowledge the particular difficulties that go with being a disciple of Sangharakshita. Over the last twenty years the relationship of Order members to Sangharakshita has been punctuated by crises. The first followed the publication of Women, Men and Angels in 1995, which confronted us with his views on gender. The second was prompted by criticisms in The Guardian and The FWBO Files that raised questions about Sangharakshita’s behaviour, his teachings and the movement’s record. The third came in 2003 with an account by an Order member of his sexual relationship with Sangharakshita that prompted much turmoil and soul-searching.
I have no wish to rehearse these issues here, but we must acknowledge their effect. The row about Women, Men and Angels was partly about gender and partly about the problems involved in disagreeing with one’s teacher. In ‘What is the Western Buddhist Order?’Sangharakshita says of disagreement in this area, ‘I regard that as a difference of opinion that does not affect [a person’s] discipleship.’ That’s an important clarification, but the disagreement remains significant.
When it comes to Sangharakshita’s sexual history, I think most Order members feel, as I do, troubled by his actions and critical of him to some degree. We can’t discount the testimony of former partners and wouldn’t countenance similar behaviour in others. Quite a few Order members have resigned because of this issue and those who have worked it through have often changed their views of Sangharakshita in the process. This issue has profoundly affected the reception of Sangharakshita’s work beyond Triratna and, for his disciples, it’s complicated when your love and respect for our teacher is matched by a strong sense of his fallibility.
Interpreting Sangharakshita
Finally, understanding the complexities of Sangharakshita’s character means standing back to gain a perspective on him. This goes along with another process. To understand our teacher I think we need to reflect on the influence of his temperament, generation, cultural affinities, and his place in Buddhist history and the modern Buddhist world. In other words, we need to interpret Sangharakshita. I could say much more about this, but for now I will simply suggest that this is a large task on which we have barely started.
For some people, including some of the most influential Order members, discipleship is seemingly uncomplicated and unproblematic. I rejoice in their merits. But the Order’s history shows that there are other aspects of the Order’s relationship with Sangharakshita and other important perspectives.
It’s awkward to discuss these matters while Sangharakshita is still among us, actively participating in the Order’s life. It’s even harder to discuss them publicly when some outsiders are happy to point out Sangharakshita’s faults, but have no regard to his virtues. However, I believe we must face them squarely and discuss them frankly if we are to survive and flourish. If Order members are waiting until he is no longer with us before raising doubts and objections, we are storing up trouble. I fear that this may be happening, and I would be failing in my duty as a disciple if I did not share my concerns.
* The Order has since changed its name to Triratna Buddhist Order
Note: until now I have not used this blog to air things I have written about issues within the Triratna Buddhist Community, even though I have written about similar issues in the Buddhist and mindfulness worlds. However, the distinction is rather artificial and I am posting this contribution to discussion of discipleship and Triratna as an experiment. It is intended mainly for others in Triratna, though I welcome comments from anyone who is interested. In moderating comments I will not accept any that echo the vitriolic tone that is sometimes found in other internet forums.
Hi Vishvapani
This theme seems very on trend. We have been discussing it in our chapter for about 4 sessions now. However, you ask: ‘But what does it means to be a disciple – in general and in relation to Sangharakshita in particular?’ I don’t think you answer this question. It seems to be that this is key: to define the parameters/characteristics or whatever of a disciple. We seem to have the same problem in our chapter. Some are not happy with the notion of discipleship but it is not really clear what discipleship consists in. There is a fear of feeling obliged to subscribe to a certain way of relating to Sangharakshita and his teachings but the expectations or nature of this relationship have not been defined. I agree though, with you, that this cannot simply be defined on one side. Consequently, it appears to be something we need to explore collectively.
I agree with vishvapani that we need to ‘delineate the content and boundaries of discipleship’.
In the 2009 paper ‘what is the western buddhist order’ Bhante gives, not a definition exactly, but plenty of examples of what discipleship does, and doesn’t, entail. here’s one quote:
…the Dharma needs to be made specific to a particular Sangha. It needs to hang together, doctrinally and methodologically, if it is to be the basis of a Sangha or order. Everybody needs to be following the same founding teacher, be guided by the same doctrinal understanding of the Dharma, and undertaking broadly the same set of practices. If they do not do that they will not have sufficient in common to be an effective Sangha and will not be able to make progress together on the Path.’.
the gist of it is quite pragmatic, i think. for a sangha to be an effective spiritual community they need to have ‘sufficient in common’, which needs a shared doctrinal understanding and set of practices.
Dhammarati: I value this too, but it ‘discipleship’ involves more than commonality. As Bhante himself has said, it implies a personal connection, and you can’t get away from the complications that brings.
Hello, Vishvapani. Firstly, thank you for an honest and thoughtful piece. Now I would like to draw a distinction between the ‘old guard’ of Order members and more recent Triratna adherents like myself.
Many of the current members worked with Sangharakshita in the early days, when Order was far smaller and more concentrated – when Bhante was younger, more energetic and altogether more present on a daily basis. They – possibly yourself included – knew him well and directly experienced his teaching. This is the kind of relationship that is usually implied by the term ‘disciple’. Such followers were affected on a very personal level by the various episodes that have provoked criticism of him. I expect that some of them felt an acute sense of bewilderment, even personal betrayal.
I, on the other hand, only became a frequent visitor to an FWBO centre in 1998. I didn’t meet Sangharakshita until very recently, when I visited him in Birmingham. I experienced his teachings and to a limited extent his personality through his writing and his recorded lectures. So I find the term ‘disciple’ a slightly exaggerated description of my relationship towards him. I admire him enormously, I’m constantly amazed by the breadth of his scholarship, I’m in awe of his intellect, and I feel a profound gratitude to him. His ‘transgressions’, if that’s what they were, I try to regard in the light of an era of very different mores than society applies today, and I’m wary of the current trend of judging too harshly behaviour that was not particularly unusual in the post-Hippy era. Besides, given certain events in my own past, I would be extremely hypocritical to dismiss an outstanding teacher on the grounds of a handful of past errors!
I ‘bought into’ the FWBO and its founder, warts and all. And while I don’t know him well enough to claim to be his disciple, and would certainly call him my spiritual leader and the inspiration for my own journey.
My Mitra friends would, I think, share that perspective, or something very like it.
Thanks for that, Nagapriya. What I want to do here and in Shabda is to prompt that discussion. The context is the papers that Bhante and Subhuti have written in recent years, which I see as an effort to delineate the content and boundaries of discipleship. Now, we haven’t really been discussing these in the Order in a way that really engages people’s doubts and questions, plus they are too wordy and too long. None the less I think their content is very helpful and in that sense they provide a good starting point for discussion and reflection on this area. However, there are things they don’t say and can’t say, so, as well as stimulating discussion per se, this thread/post is trying to add that element to it.
Thank you for communicating the issues so well. I’ve encountered the human tendency of ‘all or nothing’ in relation to teachers and so, as you highlight, what’s needed is a more nuanced approach. We can have loyalty and gratitude to our teacher for all that he has given us, particularly the teachings and context to practice. We can have empathy towards him as a human being, a poet, with the emotional complexity that we all have. And we can have own own agency in regard to the future, to stay loyal to the vision but interpret it to meet the needs of Buddhism in the 21st/22nd century, so that the Triratna Buddhist Order does not stagnate or die.
The fact that this conversation is taking place gives me cheer. I am a suuvivor of two cults, so as soon as somebody starts talking about a living leader as if he were God, I squirm. For me, any relationship with a spiritual teacher should be a releativly horizontal one. I must have the freedom to “take what I want and leave the rest.” Viewing you teacher as infalible is the road to Jones town.
But clearly, we do not view him thus. And that means that the TBA is still a safe place for me to be.
We are human and have the human condition. We have choice to act or not to, to speak or not to, to write or not to. The past is just that; the past. I try to stay present within the present moment and fail relentlessly! Through Bhante and his teaching I had an opportunity to explore a western way for which I am grateful yet it was not for me. Disciple is another label which has created yet more discussion and diversion from the work of practice. It matters not what or how you feel about Bhante when it comes to practice as it is yours alone and he has no responsibility for it. You do! His teachings are a good foundation for a practice I continue and I would humbly suggest that if the word “disciple” brings uncomfortable questions and feelings then choose another word you are personally happier with……
Much love and kindness to all beings, Tim
The reaction by a section of the order to Subhuti’s latest paper (and behind Subhuti, Bhante?) is, I believe, an inability to distinguish between an exhortation; a perfectly legitimate form of communication, and being ‘told what to do.’ The Buddha, we know, exhorted his disciples. Bhante has exhorted us, and Subhuti on behalf of Bhante is clearly exhorting us to ‘Ensure a High Degree of Commonality of Practices and Teachings’. We are all indirect disciples of the Buddha and, like Vishvapani, I too am proud to be a direct disciple of Bhante. I have often delighted in responding to his exhortations but not once has Bhante ever ‘told’ me what to do. This is what discipleship means to me. Disciples make progress by responding to exhortations even if they arrive in the form of metaphorical shouts and blows as ‘shoulds’ and ‘musts’ (which incidentally also appear in Bhante’s lovely translation of the metta sutta). Discipleship presupposes mutual freedom. Individuals who are free are best able to respond to the exhortations of a teacher who himself values individual freedom. Only individuals who are free are able to be disciples. Surely, this is what spiritual life is all about. Finally, for those who have a problem with discipleship I would ask them to explain what they meant when they stated at their ordination: ”With loyalty to my teachers, I accept this ordination.”
Hi Buddhadasa, thanks for your comment … but I think you may be responding to something other than what I wrote: perhaps discussions about commonality. Discipleship is a more general topic – that’s the one I am raising here. My question is, what do we mean by discipleship? I realise that for someone such as yourself it is as straightforward as you say, but for the reasons I suggest I don’t think that’s the whole story for people of a different temperament or outlook.
Buddhadasa writes: ‘Finally, for those who have a problem with discipleship I would ask them to explain what they meant when they stated at their ordination: ”With loyalty to my teachers, I accept this ordination.”’
I’m not quite sure what I ‘meant’ by this at the time of my ordination as, unfortunately, the first time I knew anything about it was when I found myself repeating it after Sangharakshita during my public ordination ceremony. The whole thing was so momentous and exciting at the time that didn’t have a very clear memory of parts of it afterwards. I do remember that it wasn’t until I attended a subsequent public ordination and heard the ordinand/s repeating it similarly that I thought something like “oh, that’s interesting, I must have said that too”.
Nevertheless, there are probably as many issues around ‘loyalty’ as there are around ‘discipleship’. ‘Loyalty’ was a frequently used concept in the ‘old’ Croydon centre, where I was at the time, and as it was sometimes used in a rather manipulative way, I guess that may have skewed my concept of ‘loyalty’. But what does it mean to be ‘loyal’? Actually, many of Vishvapani’s reflections above also relate to this indirectly.
Sangharakshita obviously did not mean it to take the distorted form it sometimes took in ‘old Croydon’. My own take would be that in accepting someone as one’s teacher, one is loyal to them *as teacher*, i.e. loyal in the sense of putting the teaching into practice to the best of one’s ability. It does not mean being ‘loyal’ to them as a person in the sense of ‘whatever the teacher does is right’. Nor does it mean ‘I take you, personally, as my only teacher’. In fact, loyalty to the teacher could include, for example, pointing out ethical lapses. This too is obvious if we think of our own exemplifications of kalyana mitrata – would we expect our ‘mitras’ to be silent, or complicit, regarding ethical lapses on our own part.
By the way, I’m not imputing any particular point of view on this to you Buddhadasa, I’m just exploring the issue a little from my own point of view.
Tejananda: to be fair, those of us who were ordained more recently had more of an opportunity to reflect on these verses of acceptance prior to ordination. I can remember Padmavajra addressing each of these verses in turn very deliberately at Padmaloka when I was on a Going for Refuge retreat some years ago (I think it was in a talk but I’m not completely sure of that). I suspect he made a point of letting people know what they were signing up to, as much as that’s possible prior to taking such a big step into the unknown.
Having said that, it is the unknown into which one steps at ordination. As such, even for those of us who had some time to think more about it prior to the event, just what is meant by “loyalty to my teachers” is something that you inevitably end up needing to explore as time goes on. I certainly can’t agree with everything my own preceptors would say, for example, and I know they wouldn’t want me to. (For example, I can’t think of two Order members with more different views on the application of the first precept to the question of climate change than me and my public preceptor – Buddhadasa. I love him dearly and respect him a great deal but I am convinced he is flat wrong on a fundamental ethical question here).
Overall, I can’t help but agree that the questions that Vishvapani raises are the ones that need to be asked, thoughtfully put. I celebrate the fact that he is raising them. I need to give more honest thought to my own often contradictory responses to the questions he raises. Discipleship is by no means a simple relationship and it does contain tensions. Our task is to be honest about those tensions and, in being honest about them find the creativity that will sustain our precious Sangha.
I think a lot of the difficulty comes down to the expectation that if you are a disciple of Sangharakshita, then it is a permanent arrangement. That naturally becomes problematic because (hopefully) people change, they want to move on, they want (perhaps) to learn from someone else. (‘Disciple’ comes from a root meaning ‘to learn’.) And members of the Order can end up quite conflicted because of this very natural need. It is quite traditional in Tibetan Buddhism to have a number of teachers. Maybe a lot of this will start to sort when – how shall I put it – the old boy pops his clogs?
I think Jack above hits a few nails on the head, but in my opinion perhaps the most fundamental point is this: does anyone have the right to ask someone else to define who they are? Because I think asking OMs to be disciples amounts to that. Fair enough, if you’re a plumbers’ union, then you need members to define themselves as plumbers. But that is not who plumbers are as human beings, it is what they do as a craft and as a means of living. But if you are a disciple of someone, then that is the person from whom, on a deeper human level, you learn. But that is not always going to be easily definable: it may depend on the day of the week who you are drawing inspiration from! Or you may just be relying on yourself, as the Buddha exhorted his followers to do after his death. It’s not something you’d probably think of defining anyway, but if it was, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, it’s not something you can fairly ask of someone.
Friends, I had played with the idea of entering this discussion with a definition of the presumably less problematic word ‘discipline’, thinking that this might go some way towards helping resolve people’s difficulties and even, apparently, conflicts with the actuality of ‘discipleship’ in the Triratna Buddhist Community today. There is of course much that may yet be said and much that has already being said about this topic, but I want here to make just a few observations. Firstly, discipleship is something towards which one aspires, and with which one works, not something that is ‘given’ – though it is not inconceivable that it may be bestowed as a blessing. It is an unfolding drama in all psychological and religious endeavour, and cannot, taken seriously, be otherwise. Discipleship in the Triratna Buddhist Order is for me, essentially an aspiration to become an excellent disciple of the Buddha. In attempting to realise that aspiration, I am brought face-to-face with my own shortcomings. My task, then, is to purify myself, not to blame others or the limitations of language for what is at heart the most important task and no doubt the most difficult, any individual can undertake. I cannot help thinking that perpetuating argument or even what appears to be relatively amicable, but fruitless discussion about words (rather than simply noting that some people have difficulties with them, and as soon as possible moving on to something more positive and inspiring) is often a failure to accept the existential challenge of the aspiration to Enlightenment. In conclusion, I recollect an aphorism of Urgyen Sangharakshita to the effect that “A guru (read ‘spiritual teacher’, if you prefer) is not a problem solver.” Metta to all, Ashvajit
I do not have a clearly thought through response to this, other than gratitude. Thankyou to all of you who have posted, and thankyou to Vishvapani for articulating this issue so clearly. The willingness of order members like Vishvapani to speak openly about difficult subjects, without turning away, is what has kept me involved in Triratna. As a mitra contemplating asking for ordination this article is very helpful, and I am grateful that it is publicly available, not just for order members.