This weeks FBA Podcast, is a recording of a question and answer session with Sangharakshita at the Croydon Buddhist Centre in 2004. “An Evening with Sangharakshita” is a lovely introduction to the man who founded the Triratna Buddhist Order and Community (formally known as the Western Buddhist Order and FWBO).
Free Buddhist Audio
An Evening with Sangharakshita
(upbeat music) - This podcast is brought to you by Free Buddhist Audio, the Dharma for real life. Our work is funded entirely by donations from our generous listeners. If you would like to help us keep this free, come and join us at freebuddhistaudio.com/community. Thank you and happy listening. - So we have a treat this evening. It's a while since Sangarachita has been in a position to visit centers and to answer questions. And thanks to Paul's initiative, with a little encouragement from Bante, we have the great good fortune to be able to welcome Sangarachita, the founder of the movement, the man without whom none of us would be here to the Croydon Center this evening. And what we're gonna do is Sangarachita is going to spend the next hour or so answering a series of questions. So what, in case you don't know, what happened was we let people know that Bante was coming and people sent in questions that they would like to ask in. And from the list of questions that were offered, Bante sorted out the ones that were most appropriate and could be covered in the time available. So the people are asking the questions, know which ones they're gonna ask. There's a sort of sequence sorted out. So I'm just kind of the conductor this evening, although some of the questions are mine, so I do get to do a bit. I think that's all there is to it, really. Shall we kick off? Yes, thank you very much. I must say, to begin with, I'm very glad to be here again, and very glad I'm able to be here. And even though I literally can't see everybody, I can feel that you're all here. I can see those in front at least. And I'm very happy to be in Croydon, at least in the Croydon Buddhist Center once more, and to see so many old trends. So what happens? The best question is mine. (laughing) Oh, just to let you know, I'll be repeating the questions after they've been asked, just to make sure they're recorded. So, first question. So there've been substantial changes, substantial cultural, political, and social changes in the UK since the F.W.B.O. and the Western Buddhist order were founded in the late '60s. And what I was wondering are the aspects of the Dharma that you can see sit and need more or less emphasis now than when the movements and order were founded in those early days. - Well, Sanghsara is always a Sanghsara. The pattern of Sanghsara changes from time to time. So yes, in a sense, things are very different now, 36 years after the movement term was founded, and then it was then. But basically, I think nothing has changed very much. Most people are still influenced by greed, hatred, and delusion. In fact, even many order members are. So the picture hasn't fundamentally changed. And therefore, I think what is needed is not fundamentally changed. We still need Sheila, we still need Samadhi, we still need Prenya. But if I was to point to something, something that was particularly needed at present, at least within our own movement, that we needed to emphasize more than we have in the past. I think it's just one thing, at least one thing that I can think of at the moment. And that is, I think we ought to try to live more simply. More simply. Because one of the things that has happened over the last several years is that people generally have become much more prosperous. The allure of materialism has become more tempting. And it's very, very easy to get sucked into that. Very easy to get drawn into that. In fact, we have an illustration of that here in court in itself. While I was first driven up the High Street, I think it was, yes, the evening before last, I was astonished to see the proliferation of bars and clubs and so on. They were not there 30 years ago. They weren't there probably 20 years ago, perhaps 15 years ago. And that is perhaps in a way symbolic of our present rather materialistic culture. So I think if there's anything, though with all aspects of the dharma need to be emphasized, but if there's anything that in this day and age, here in Britain, we need to emphasize more than ever. I think it is simplicity of life, simplicity of lifestyle, doing with less, not being bewildered by the multiplicity of choices, but frightened even by them. But it's just considered what we really do need in order to live a truly human life as a basis for our Buddhist spiritual life. - Thank you. That one strikes home rather pointedly. Thank you, Benter. So I think soon, yeah. - When people talk at the early years at the FWBO, they give the impression that things were quite chaotic, drug sex and rock and roll. Well, in your case, not much rock and roll. But so out of that has grown a movement of great spiritual depth and commitment. And have you reflected on this and considered how this happened? And I wondered whether you had any part in that. - Oh, I've got to repeat it, haven't I? Thank you. (audience laughs) And this is always useful. - Bye, bye. - So when people talk of the early years of the FWBO, they give the impression that things are quite chaotic, drugs, sex and rock and roll, but not so much rock and roll. Yet out of that has grown a movement of great spiritual depth and commitment. Have you reflected on this and considered how this happened? Perhaps there were specific things you put in place. - I think the first thing I'd like to say is that things at the very beginning were not so chaotic 'cause one might have thought. Because things were very, very small. There were very, very few offers involved in the movement. I was in personal contact with everybody, especially with those who came and told them regularly. So perhaps all together at the very beginning, I was in contact with two dozen, three dozen people. So I wouldn't say that things were chaotic, especially if I look back for instance to our finances. For the first, so many years of our existence, we had a very capable conscientious treasurer who kept us well out of debt, always in the black. So certainly there wasn't that sort of a financial chaos. Some people's individual lives were a bit chaotic. Yes, people did take drugs, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, they did get up rather late in the morning. And yes, they did squat, sometimes in an unauthorized manner. So things in that sense were a little bit chaotic, but I think that can be overly emphasized because partly there were so few offers and they were all in contact with me and we were meditating. We were studying the Dharma, later on we were going on retreat and later on we were living in communities. It wasn't exactly organized, but it was organic, one might say. I think probably there's much more in society as a whole of some of the things that you mentioned now and then, for instance, drug taking. In those days, yes, quite a few people were taking drugs, but they were taking psychedelic drugs and they were taking them as part of their crest for the greater reality. And often the taking of drugs led them to meditation. Nowadays, of course, people often take drugs just for recreational purposes and that doesn't really need anywhere. So I wouldn't like to exaggerate the extent of the chaos in a very early movement. Also, of course, we have some very respectable people. The first wave of all the members were very middle-class people on the whole. It was only with the second wave of that. That hippies and people of that sort came in bold. I mentioned, you know, I was first at that. Well, here happened to be a company secretary. And not so many years later, he was elevated to the peerage. So our beginnings in some ways, at least, were quite respectable. Do you haven't answered the second part of my question? Oh, yes, all right. Just remind me. Well, how it grew, how you feel, how it has grown into something of such doubt? Well, people come in and ask me that's what the question from time to time. Especially people wanting to just set up spiritual movements of their own. And years ago, especially, people seemed to have the impression that there was some technique. If you knew that technique, then you could never set up a successful spiritual movement or a movement of some other kind. But there was no question of technique at all. There's no sort of trade secrets to it. What I did was, just what I was doing in India, more or less, with a somewhat different audience. I gave talks, gave lectures, thought meditation, made retreats, that was it, that was the secret. And we just kept on doing those things. And one thing led to another. The whole thing developed in a quite organic manner in the way that a plant does. You know, proliferating more and more branches and trees and leaves. It's a no secret, no technique. - Thank you. - So Sarah, you're up next. - I wanted to ask you, Vanto, about some teacher-people relationships. See your thoughts about how a teacher and people can best work with the power imbalance between them. So in regard to teacher-people relationships, what are your thoughts about how a teacher and people can best work with the power imbalance between them? - I wouldn't say that there is always necessarily a power imbalance. I was thinking over this and I was thinking, well, suppose for a teacher, you have order member. And suppose for a pupil, you have, say, a mittra or a friend. Well, I might assume that the balance of power is in favor of the order member, because he's an order member by virtue of his position. But then that is power and that is power. Power comes in many different forms. So let me give you an example. Suppose, for instance, this particular order member is a very good order member, practices, meditation, regularly. But perhaps he's not very quick intellectually, perhaps he's not very well read. So along comes a mittra, a young person, a young man, perhaps he's very well read, very intellectual, very articulate. So he can make rings around that order member. So where does the imbalance of power lie? So I think one shouldn't jump to conclusions as to where the balance of power lies. Well, I'd go a bit further than that. I'd say, in interpersonal relationships, one shouldn't be thinking in terms of power at all, not even of a balance of power, because you're still thinking in terms of power. So I would say that whether you're a teacher, whether you're a pupil, whether you're a friend, whether you're a lover, or whatever it is, an employer, an employee, as a Buddhist, you should try on every occasion, in every relationship, not to act in accordance with the power mode as we say. I think it's going to be very, very difficult to strike, as it were, just a balance of powers between two people, how do you decide, who decides? So I think it's much better, very much better. If each person, each party through the relationship does his or her best not to act from the power mode, and to be always on the alert, always aware of oneself, how one is acting, so that whether one has got greater knowledge or a higher position or a bit of charisma, one is not using that as a means of intimidating or coercing or persuading the other person. So I think we just have to get into the habit of not thinking in terms of power, in connection with relationships of any kind, at all, if we are Buddhist, that is, then we're trying to practice the dharma. Does that cover it, or? Partially, yeah, cover it. The rich bit isn't covered. The bit I'm not sure about is the assumption that power may not be there. My view is it is there by the nature of the relationship, but with the teacher and the pupil. When one may have power, anybody may have power, a boss has power, but if you are the Buddhist, you will try not to use the power that you have in the connection, in connection with the relationship, whatever it is, or to the coin of phrase. We have to try to act in what we're used to, we call the love mode, rather than the power mode, and be very aware of whatever power we possess, or are perceived to possess, and just put that to one side in our relationships with others. Especially, as I say, if we are Buddhists, in the world outside, perhaps, that can't be done, but at least we should try even there. So Sarah asks what's the best way to do that? Is that simply through the application of mindfulness, or is there anything else that occurs to you? Well, you have to be mindful so that you can be aware in the first place, whether or not you have power, and if you have power, that you're not going to exercise it in relationship to another person, whatever the nature of the relationship. So yes, awareness is definitely needed. And of course, self-knowledge. Thank you. So the next question is from Douglas. If you look back the days when you started the movement, is there any one thing in particular you would do differently, or perhaps wish your head just not done at all? Just repeat it. So the question is, if you look back to the days when you started the movement, is there any one thing in particular you would do differently, or perhaps you'd just not done at all? Because you all hang together. When I started the movement, there were several options before me. One was a society on the lines of the Buddhist society. That option didn't appeal to me. And another option was a form of Buddhism, a Buddhist movement that adhered to one Buddhist tradition, to an exclusion of only others. That didn't appeal to me either. So what I eventually decided was what was needed was an order. This is what eventually we had, in which we have developed, in which we have now. But upon from that, there was the question of structure. And there I think there was a definite choice. I'm not so sure that I thought about this very consciously at the time. But there was an alternative model, as it were, through the model that we adopted. And that was having just one big center in the country where a few people lived, and to which everybody came, all your members came. Now, some other Buddhist groups or movements have followed that particular model. But we haven't. We've adopted the model initially. This was our study of city centers. We had initially, of course, a little center, a tiny center. A basement is central London. Then we had the archway center. And then, of course, we had the LBC. And we took a quote on Buddhist center. So that was the model that we followed. The city center, when things were developing from that, team-based white-light road communities around the center and so on. But we could have followed that other model. But I think, looking back, that I'm glad we didn't follow that other model. I think it has very definite limitations. And one is unlikely to spread, in some cases, very much or very far, if one follows that particular model. So we've got this multi-center model, as it were. Each center having its satellite communities and businesses and other activities. So Doug's question is there anything you'd have done differently? I don't think so. No, I think I want to look back. Yes, there would still have been lectures. There would have been meditation classes. There would have been retreats. No. Fair enough, thank you. So, Eve has a question about Dilga Cancer, I'm sharing. Over the past 18 months, I have found myself increasingly drawn to Dilga Cancer, in Harshay. It's not on a logical or fathomable level, but it's a very vivid experience. So my question is, is there a place for guru yoga within one's spiritual practice, even if you haven't met the guru in person and, in fact, he died in Bhutan 13 years ago? Okay, so the question has submitted. Over the past 18 months, Eve says she's found herself increasingly drawn towards Dilga Cancer in Pashay, who was one of Sankarachta's teachers. This isn't a conscious movement, rather it appears to be on a mentally unfathomable level. Is it possible to incorporate the practice of guru yoga into one's spiritual path? Even if one has never met the guru himself, and, in fact, he died over 13 years ago? Well, I think the short answer is really definitely yes, because the guru yoga is not practice simply with one's living teacher. He's some of the traditional forms of guru yoga, but some other features prominently, you know, the Sankar path features prominently. So it is not that the guru who is part of the guru yoga practice needs to be living. What is much more living that is in the little sense? What is much more important is that one has sense, somehow, of the presence of that particular guru. And, well, yes, Dilga Cancer was one of my own teachers, and I do remember him very vividly vividly. I can't say that I remember him less vividly now than I did say 10 or 15 years ago. It's still a very vivid presence that he has for me. So if one feels drawn to someone like Dilga Cancer, and naturally drawn, I think that is a very good thing. And I don't think one should have any difficulty in incorporating him as the guru of the guru yoga into one's spiritual practice and spiritual path. I consider myself as a very fortunate, you know, to have had the contact with him that I did have. I remember that when he first came to Kalimpong, which must have been in the early 50s, he wasn't really very well known. He was living very humbly and simply with his wife and his two daughters in the little cottage in the grounds of the Bhutanese Gondpa in Kalimpong, and that's where I first met him. And after a while I was visiting him regularly. He was always free, he seemed to have very few visitors. He always welcomed me, and I received in the course of a few years a number of teachings from him. So I have very, very positive memories of him indeed. And as I said, if anybody feels spontaneously drawn to him in a deep and genuine way, they shouldn't hesitate to follow that up. Okay, thank you, Bante. So back to Doug for another short question. And my group have collected karma. I've been asked this question many times over the years, so I came into a little bit of thought. I think mine just repeated. Can a group have collective karma? So I think the short answer is, well, why not? In the Pali canon, as far as I can remember, the Buddha doesn't say anything directly about collective karma, but there are little hints, you want little clues. For instance, there is one passage where a very elderly couple, who have been married for a very long time, approached the Buddha, and they say that they would like to be reborn together in a future life. So how are they to be sure of that? What should they do? So the Buddha says that if they have the same thoughts, the same words, and the same actions, then they'll be reborn together. So one can enlarge upon that. If a group of people have the same thoughts, the same words, the same activities, what the chances are, perhaps they'll be born together as a group in some future existence. There's no reason why a son must shouldn't be reborn as well as an individual. I mean, assuming that that son has not attained enlightenment, so to speak. And also, there are little clues. If you read the Jartica stories, which are not all completely canonical, if you read the Jartica stories, you'll see that the same group of people being born and reborn again and again. That's in the Buddha, on and there, and just showed to her, and David that. They all had the relationships between one another. In their previous existence, here they are in their last life. The Buddha becomes enlightened, only the becomes one of his disciples. They show that it becomes one of his disciples, and David data is said to have attacked the Buddha, and so on, just as they all did in previous lives. So I don't see anything contrary to Buddhist teaching in the idea of collective karma, but it's not that the karma is a collective thing. It is all a coincidence of karma. If you generate the same kadamas, you are likely to have the same results. There's an author called Arthur Gaudium, if anyone's out of him. He claims to have lived as a katar here in the 14th century with friends of his soup, when we knew in this present life. To me, that doesn't sound incredible. So if it is true, or perhaps it is nice to think that we're not only together and practicing together in this lifetime, but perhaps we'll be doing it in infusion lifetimes. Perhaps we're doing it in the pure land. Who knows? So even though it's not a specific teaching of the Buddha that there is collective karma, I do not think that that concept is incompatible with the Buddhist teaching. What's that? Cover what you were getting at. Okay. So next up, Dharma Sri. If there was a single historical or legendary figure you could meet, who would you choose and why? Oh dear. Oh, you've got a bit more thinking time while I read the question again. So if there was a single historical or legendary person that you could meet, who would you choose and why? Well, it may seem strange. I found this the most difficult of all the questions, because there was such a wide range of choice. So many people that one would like to see, like to meet. But then I focused on the word meet. What does one mean by meet? I've got various very favorite historical characters. I think my favorite historical character is Queen Elizabeth I. And next to her, I think Samuel Johnson. But would one be able to meet Queen Elizabeth? But first, no, one might get a distant view of him if one was lucky, but the idea of meeting him and having a chat for a conversation is rather unthinkable. Same with Samuel Johnson, he might hit you with one of his famous down-putting sayings. And there were much about others. I suppose, as a Buddhist, I ought to say the Buddha. But I take it that figures like the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas, they're not covered by the question. Or perhaps we just take it at granted, we would like to meet them. But if as Buddhist, we would all like to meet, say the Buddha or Bodhisattva, well, there's no question, really. So yes, I was left wondering, well, who, when I thought about, what about Coleridge? I'm very fond of Coleridge, his life, his work, his poetry, his thinking. Coleridge was among them, I guess. Nobody could get a word in his ways. So eventually, I thought, if there's one historical person leaving us like Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, whom I would really like to meet, would be John Keats before he became ill. Because judging by his letters, he was a very, very intelligent, very penetrating thinker. And he clearly had a great gift for friendship. And it was possible to have a good conversation with him, a good argument with him. And it was also a very attractive sort of person. People did like him. So I think, in the end, I would say, I'd like to meet John Keats. I'd love to be able to say him. We brought him here tonight. We've flown him all the way from whenever it was, he was alive. But I'm afraid that's beyond us. So, Mike, would you like to ask your question? You have sought to introduce Buddhism into Western culture within an accessible manner. Stephen Bachelor, too, has tried to make Buddhism a means of answering genuine existential concerns to individuals in a contemporary and accessible manner. Do you not think his attempt should be embraced, modified if necessary, but not crushingly rejected as an interloper? Interloper. So, you have sought to introduce Buddhism into Western culture within an accessible manner. Stephen Bachelor has also tried to make Buddhism a means of answering genuine existential concerns to individuals in a contemporary and accessible manner. Do you not think his attempt should be embraced, modified if necessary, but not crushingly rejected as an interloper? Well, Stephen Bachelor is a quite interesting person. He's had a quite interesting history. I don't know if people are generally aware of that. He was a Tibetan monk for several years. He had quite a few years, I think, studying with a Geshi Vapten, who belonged to the Galukbar order. But he became disillusioned with Tibetan Buddhism, and he went to Japan, and he was practicing Zenba under a teacher. For several years, I believe, and then he came back to the West. So, since then, he has written a number of quite interesting books and some of them are a bit controversial. Something in view of his history as a practicing Buddhist, he can't be regarded as an interloper. But there's no doubt that he is a bit controversial, not personally, but some of his views are a bit controversial. And I know he has come in for some criticism, as well as appreciation, from various quarters, from various other Buddhists. I think it was about two years ago, he happened to write something quite critical about the Yukadumba tradition. So, the followers of the Yukadumba tradition were not really pleased with that. So, they retorted with some criticism of their own, saying that he were not a Buddhist, and that upset him very much. But I think that would be going much, much too far, even though one might not be able to agree with some of his views or some of his opinions. Just recently, he's published a book on Satan and Mara, which looks very interesting. I'm not able to read it, but I hope you get some friends to dip into it for me and don't let me know what is written. I'm sure it will be interesting. Does that cover your point, Mark? Well, yes, it gives a general overview. But, Andy, is there not an existential list point of view within Buddhism, which should be developed? At which point of existentialist view? I'm not sure how one uses the term in this connection. For Buddhism is actually essential in the sense that it deals with the facts of existence. Gukha, Anitya, Anata. But whether it is existential in the sense, for instance, of Haidigar, or Yaspurs, or Przumphusatra, I think that is perhaps a different matter. Thank you. So, chemistry, yeah. Thank you. When you have done devotional practice, for example, the refugee tree practice, how have you experienced devotion towards figures who are historical, human, and possibly flawed in the way that the archetypal figures in the practice cannot be? So, the question from Phema City is, when you have done devotional practice, for example, the refuge tree practice, how have you experienced devotional figures who are historical and human, and possibly flawed, in a way that archetypal figures in a practice cannot be, or are not? I don't think in principle there is any real difference, but this is my personal experience. If I think, for instance, of my own teachers, if I think of all eight of them, my principal teachers, they are not archetypal figures. But I don't see any flaws in them, and as their disciple, I don't go looking for flaws. And if other people see flaws in them, I take no notice of that. I remember when I was in Kalingpong, some of my gurus were subjected to very severe criticism of various kinds by different people, but to me that was quite irrelevant. To me, they were my teachers, and I was concerned only with those qualities of theirs, from which I could learn, and which were beneficial to me. So, that has always been my attitude. So, in practice for me, I've never found a difference between my human and historical teachers, with whom I was in personal contact, and the archetypal figures. Some historical figures on the refuge tree sort of come somewhere in between. I've always had a very strong feeling for instance, for the figure of Attisha. And shortly before I lost my part, I lost my eyesight. I gave a lecture at the Birmingham Buddhist Center just on Attisha. I think it was called A Life for the Dharma. That was very, very inspiring. And it could be that, well maybe, Attisha had his thoughts. That doesn't really concern us. What we are going to send with this is noble example, the way he sacrificed his life. Sacrificed, it seems, twelve years of his life literally, so that he could benefit the people of Tibet in a way that done them. So, for me personally, this has never been a problem. So, if, I mean, I have rather more ambivalent relationships with some of my teachers. So, would your encouragement in that context be to focus on my appreciation of what they've given me? Very indefinitely. Is that cover your point, Kim? Ratna Chidiya. Bounty, different sort of question. Could you say something about your thoughts, about altruistic activity in the world, as an insight practice in the light of your illness? In the light of my illness, I wonder why in the light of my illness between minutes? I do as well, but maybe Ratna Chidiya could take. Okay, so could you say something about your thoughts, about altruistic activity in the world, as an insight practice, in the light of your illness? In the light of my illness, I'm wondering, you know, what the significance of that is? Should we get Ratna Chidiya to clarify? Yes, I think. Because I can understand the first bit about altruistic activity in the world, possibly being a means of developing insight. Well, where does my illness come in? There are two aspects to this, one that you've already mentioned, the emphasis in the beginning of the FWA only creating city centres. And that has developed in all sorts of ways that the branches and twigs from that. What I see little of emanating from the Buddhist centre, left to a new load, is activity specifically away from the centre. And we are surrounded by the age of people that are ill. And I see little evidence of the activity from the centre. In the light of illness and such things, not just my illness. Yes. Okay, shall I try and summarise that for the recording? So, Ratna Chidiya was making an observation, I think, that they are supposed to be in comparison to some other Buddhist movements who have an emphasis on social activities in the light of illness in the world. But, you know, how do we respond to that? Well, the two things here, I suppose, there is the altruistic activity in the world, which may be good and helpful, even apart from it being an insight practice for some people. On the other hand, there is altruistic activity in the world as an insight practice. We mustn't forget, of course, that we do have a very big input in India. We have our social work there, we have our medical work there. We have, I think, now more than 20 student hostels, for instance, which enable new people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get an education. So, we do have that. But you are right, there is inner own society here. There are many people who are in need, and not so very long ago. I think there was some project, mooted, and met our project. And the auspices were only the different care workers in the movement should get together and try to create a common platform, and even eventually, a sort of collective team-based white livelihood business. So, I would say, this would be a good thing. And perhaps people do go out to others in society less than perhaps as mooted as they should. But it's obviously up to each individual Buddhist to consider their position in this respect. It's a question of time, but often. But I would certainly encourage those who feel moved to help the aged or to help others who are suffering in any way as best they can. Now, whether it's an insight practice, this depends very much on the practitioner. You can only be an insight practice in real depth. If you don't feel that here are you doing something for that other person, if there's two big a sense of difference between you and the other person and what you're doing for that other person, then it can't be an insight practice. To be an insight practice, that altruistic activity has to come from somewhere deep within you, where there isn't you or the other person or a relationship of any kind between you. And that is not easy, but it's not impossible. This is what the perfection of written teaching is all about, as some of you must know. But if one can adopt altruistic activity in the community as a means of generating insight, obviously that is a very desirable thing to do. But it's very difficult and it needs to be supported by a lot of solid spiritual practice. I remember in this connection something that was said to me by an older member who had been working in a hospice. She had to give it up in the end, though she didn't want to, because she was working alone, not as a member of a team. She said if she'd been able to work as a member of a team, she probably would have been able to continue. So that also needs to be considered, where the one doesn't need some sort of companionship in that sort of activity, not just going it alone. Yes, that latter point has been in the corners of my own experience, I'll ask for you. Thank you. Thank you. So we're back with Dharmashree now, if I have a question from her. Now that you have to be read to rather than read for yourself, and hence presumably have less external input, how do you spend your time? What sort of things do you reflect on? So the question is now that you have to read rather than read for yourself. So in case you didn't know, Sangrette's eyesight deteriorated very badly. Couple of years ago now? Two and a half. Yes, three and a half. So that means that you have less external input. How do you spend your time and what do you reflect on? Well you might be surprised to hear it, but I might seem to be very busy these days. Yes, of course I don't read as I used to, I can sometimes read very big print. And of course I have a magnifying glass, which I sometimes use. But when I first had this deterioration of my eyesight, it didn't really bother me too much. I said to myself, well it's as though Mother Nature is saying to me, well, Sangrette Shita, you've been reading all your life. You've read so many books, it's time you just reflected more. So I took the hint as it were. So I do spend more time reflecting. And of course I dictate. I don't mean dictate to people, I dictate. I dictate replies to letters and I dictate other little things that I'm working on. I go for walks and I see people. They have to have my rest. In that way the day does seem really full. And it seems to fly by very quickly and every week seems to go by, a month seems to go by. And I have visited this center and that center here and there. Which will help us to pass the time. But the question also relates to what I reflect on. All sorts of things. I must say that over the last two or three years, especially since I lost part of my eyesight, I reflected quite a lot on my early life. That is to say my life as a child and as an adolescent. I've reflected quite a bit on my family, my relations and the different relationships between them. And I think as I've reflected I've understood things connected with the family for instance, which I didn't understand at the time. And of course I reflect on my time in India. Sometimes I reflect on my teachers. I reflect on friends I had in India. In fact only a few days ago I had the news that one of my very oldest and best friends in India, Dharmarakshi, that had died, is not much younger than me. And he was one of my translators when I was moving around among the ex handfuls as they were caused as moving around giving lectures all over the place when the western and central India. And he translated so many of my lectures. He's a very lively, friendly, communicative person. So he's gone. So I've been thinking from time to time reflecting on the friends I've had. And so many of them now are gone because I'm nearly 80. So I'm out living quite a lot of people. Many of my friends in India especially were quite a bit older than me, so they've obviously on the whole been pre-deceasing me. I've only two or three very old friends left now and they're in the 90s. Apart from people in the order. So these are the sort of things I have been reflecting on. And I've also reflect on things I've read in the past. Try to understand them more. Reflect on the Buddha's teachings, especially as I'm doing some study with someone. On some of those teachings. So there's quite a lot of reflection going on. So yes, a busy day, every day. OK. And now we have another one from the look. What do you still want to achieve, if anything? Achieve. So, shall I? What do you still want to achieve, if anything? Well, I think my aims in that respect are quite modest. I'm doing a bit of dictating a present on the subject of Buddhism and Christianity. It's not a proper comparative study such as I wanted to do some years ago. It's just the story of my personal contacts with Christianity and with Christians under various headings. So I've been getting on with that. I'm more than halfway through. And I think what I would like to achieve, my present modest aim, is just to finish it. It'll take me a few more months. And then we shall see whether there's anything more I would like to achieve. Do you have any more memoirs in mind? Or memoirs, yes, I would like to be able to dictate more memoirs, but it's much too big a job. I have reminisced about, I've reminisced about my very early life, and also some of my experiences while working among the fours of Dr. Embedkar, who became Buddhist, I reminisced, and it'll convince her a few years ago that I think I want to get the four tapes. But I don't think I'm able to produce any more memoirs. I would very much like to, but I don't think it's possible. Why would you like to? Well, I'm one of those people who, having begun something, likes to finish it. So I've produced four volumes of memoirs. There are two considerable gaps. One is the gap between 1957 and 1964. There's a gap. And then of course there's a gap after the foundation of the movement. So there are those two big gaps that I would like to have been able to close, but it doesn't because they'll actually be able to know. Bictating is not at all easy, and there will be so many things that really would need to be looked up, and old correspondence consulted, and old issues of shabader, and gold and drum, and so on, it would be very difficult. So no, regretfully not able to produce any more volumes of memoirs. Some people of course think I've been enough memoirs anyway. And I think I can, if I'm not mistaken, not all the members, even who have made all four volumes of them. OK, thank you. Darmish Ray, another one from you. If there was a single event in your life, you could go back to and do differently, or do something instead of what you actually did, what would it be? There's a bit that came to one of the previous questions, but not quite. If there was a single event in your life, you could go back to and do differently, or to do something else instead, what would it be? So the question is, who would go back? Is it me, as I am now, who is to go back? Or is it me, as I was thin, who is to go back, if you see what I mean? If it's me, as I am now, who was to go back? I probably would do many things differently. But then, if it's the me that was thin, who is to go back? Well, then I probably wouldn't do anything differently. I hope this isn't too paradoxical, but you see what I mean. I can't, as it were, undo the experience for the last 36 years, and go back in my original innocence and simplicity. No, that isn't possible. So let's a no, then. Yes. No, it is more like it's impossible. We've got another one coming up along the same line. So Ratna Tudor, another one for me. As there is a debate current within the order in the context of awareness meditation, is there anything you could say that would help clarify or add to what you originally said about the word acceptance? It seems one has to say some things over and over again. Can I just repeat the question? As there is a debate currently within the order in the context of awareness meditation, is there anything you could say that would help clarify or add to what you originally said about the word acceptance? Yes, the word acceptance. According to the dictionary, the primary meaning is to receive without probation. I think personally we should stick to that sense and not use the term to signify something which I would prefer to call recognition. Otherwise, I think we do get a bit confused. If we look at the Buddha's age for a path, well, there's this right effort. There's the effort to overcome unskilled for mental states and to stop unarisoned, unskilled for mental states for a rising. There's the effort to bring into existence skillful states which you not exist and to further those which already are in existence. There is this fourfold right effort. So if you have an unskilled for mental state, you have to recognize it. I think it's very misleading to say that you have to accept it. That can only cause confusion. If you have an unskilled for mental state, you must recognize it as unskilled for and try to rid yourself of it in any one of the various means that the Buddha has indicated very clearly in the parlor scriptures. But yes, to say that you must accept that unskilled for mental state when merely you should be saying you just recognize it as unskilled for. That just causes confusion. So I've said this before and I say it again and really I've really nothing further to add. And I can't talk wondering sometimes why there should be so much discussion about this sort of issue when to me it seems quite clear and simple. So I suppose the point that occurs to me there is that that recognition or acknowledgement needs to be done from a basis of matter. It doesn't take rather than a sort of harsh response. Recognition is recognition. It's neither soft nor hard. Acknowledgement is neither hard nor soft. Acknowledgement is acknowledgement. Okay. Thank you. It's as I understood, it comes to you. Thank you for your opinion. Great. Okay. Next up, Paul. Thank you. What have been the happiest and saddest moments of your life today? So what have been the happiest and saddest moments of your life today? Well, I think I've been very fortunate in the course of my life. I think I've had on the whole a very happy life. I haven't had really very many difficulties. I've had very very few painful and unpleasant experiences, especially compared with the lives of some other people. I remember that when we had our first ordination retreat, Satil Convento, we had the idea, I think it was probably my idea, of people telling their life stories. And at the first we thought that what people would take about 10, 15 minutes to tell their life stories briefly in the evening. But it so happened that some people took an hour, two hours and even two successive evenings. And one of the things that I found a real eye opener was what difficult and painful lives. You know, so many people had had to date. People who are now there in Convento and about to be ordained into the Western Buddhist Order. And I must say in comparison with some people I know, some other members I know, I've had a very easy and happy time. So it's not easy for me to say which was my, what is it, happiest moment. Happyest moment. Happiness and sadness. No, sadness might be more easy, but happiest, no, it's very difficult to say it. But if I have to have a shot at it, I would say probably, certainly when I was in India, my happiest time when I was moving among the exantachables, the former desire, the followers of Dr. Ambetic who had become Buddhist and teaching the Dharma. Because it was so clear that it was needed, that it was meeting with such a positive response that people were so happy to hear, just the simple things that I had to say. Because they knew nothing of the Dharma, they'd all become Buddhists out of faith in Dr. Ambetica. And usually they knew nothing at all about the Dharma. But when they did hear, they were so happy, so enthusiastic, so pleased. And I also felt very happy, I felt I was really spending my time in the best possible way that I could. And because when I've been back here in England, yes now for so many years, here also people appreciate the Dharma. But very often, even those who appreciate it and try to practice it, very often they don't appreciate in such a wholehearted manner, as many of those whom I used to lecture to in India. Because in India, the Dharma was helping to lift people out of a state of real degradation and social contempt and so on. And they felt correspondingly grateful. And sometimes I didn't feel that there's that kind of response here. Sometimes I sort of generalise and say that people's problems were material and economic. And the Dharma helped lift them out of those. Here they're the psychological, and the Dharma helped lift out of those. And that's also one of the reasons why I get a bit disappointed when people leaving the movement get bumped down in psychology and psychologising. That has its place, and the various therapies are very useful. But we must very be very careful. We don't reduce the Dharma just to another form of therapy or another system of psychology. So yes, this is probably on the whole of my very happiest moment or my happiest time. Though I have had some very happy times in this country and in Europe generally as well. But as for the sadist, I think that's rather more easy. I think that my sadist time was when a friend I had a very close friend about whom I written in my last rolling of memoirs committed suicide. I think that was the sadist time. Not just that he committed suicide, but that he seemed to feel that he did feel there was no other way and that nobody could help. He tried all sorts of helps psychiatry especially, but he didn't help. And he was a very very intelligent and a very fine and positive person and he was such a shame that his life should be cut short by his own hand in that way. So that I think was my sadist experience. It was more the sad, sadist, or the weak term, but I think you can understand what I mean. I apologize for the answer. This one won't exist. You've written recently during your recovery from illness that in the past your reflections on your own impairments, had centered on your death and that you hadn't really reflected on sickness and old age. Are you able to say more about this since coming to this recent realization? So the question is you've written recently during your recovery from illness that in the past your reflections on your own impairments had centered on your death and that you hadn't really reflected on sickness and old age. Are you able to say more about this since coming to this recent realization? I think the only thing I'm able to say is that for me old age was sort of swallowed up in death. That old age leads to death sooner or later. Not that young people don't die, but old people sooner or later certainly do die. So I think for me in the past old age was overshadowed by death. That was what one really had to face. Old age was something that just led up to death. The real problem, if it was a problem, was the problem of death. So I think that must be the reason, but of course recently I've been reflecting more about old age. Not that I've filled old age within myself, but that I have been suffering more from the externally fixed of it. They did the body aging and the problem of sleep and all that sort of thing. But I think still nonetheless for me death is the question not old age. Old age is more like the introduction to death. I think that's what I can really say. It's probably not very satisfactory and I may think of something else later on some other time. But that's all I have to say on the subject for the present. Have you experienced old age and sickness affecting your ability to work with your consciousness, with your mind? No, I don't think so, because all during the time that I was suffering very severely from insomnia last year to the point of what they call sleep deprivation. I was still able to edit those two small books, living with awareness and living with kindness. For a very short period, because I had so little energy, not every day by any means and not even every week. But my mind was sufficiently capable and alert to be able to do that editing work. And I don't think that those two books show any signs of senility or anything of that sort. And also, of course, I was seeing people. I could see them that I'm only a very short notice, because I didn't know how I would be the next day even. And I don't think anybody noticed that I was less mentally acute than I was before, if they did, of course they didn't say so. But I don't think I was less acute than before. I think I meant in terms of, say, the full right efforts or something, because personally I noticed that if I'm a bit short on sleep, then I'm much more likely to be snappy with people. You'll have to ask the people about me. I can't say. I may have been just snappy, but I don't know. Who's up next? Douglas? Do you have any fears for the movement? So, do you have any fears for the movement? I suppose I could say I have no fears, and I could say that I have some fears, and both statements would be equally true. Fears for the movement, where the movement does exist in this world. It does exist in this samsara, and it cannot but be affected by it. I think if I have any fear for the movement, it is that, if it isn't very careful, if individuals within the movement, especially the order aren't careful. The movement could become more and more affected by, not as they're infected by the zeitgeist, the spirit of the time. Which isn't particularly noble or inspiring when I think. So, I think this is what one has to be very much only alert in regards to, that we don't succumb to these external influences and pressures that we don't compromise. I think there is that danger, and therefore it is not just a fear that I have. I think it's a fear that we should all have, fear in the sense of being aware of that danger, of that possibility. The little by little we may lose our idealism or truly dynamic thrust, and just become just another, what should I say, with a church? We don't want that to be. But this is the danger from without, but there's also the danger from within. I think the danger from within arises, when people lose, especially when order members lose their initial spiritual inspiration, and they start sort of slacking, taking things a bit easy, being less idealistic, caring less for the dharma, caring less for the movement. So, there are these two things. There are dangers from outside, and therefore fears of what comes from outside, and also fears with regard to decay from within. But if we are, or if you all continue to be aware of these dangers and are prepared to do something about it, at least prevent those sort of things from happening, well then we should have no real fears. But the enemy without, and the enemy within, and the pressures of the world are very, very strong. I'm sure most of you know that and feel it. But the danger is that we allow those pressures, you know, from without, just to influence ourselves too deeply, and influence the way we work, influence the way we run the movement, influence the way we think in terms of success and so on. But also that line of heritage poetry, we are betrayed by what is false within. So, there's that side to it also. We have to keep a light, the flame of our own idealism. People have been commenting recently that the early order was much more idealistic than the present one. That may be the case, or it may be that some parts of the movement are less others more idealistic than in the past. But we must people like that, that flame of idealism, the belief in the possibility of something better, not just for the individual, but for us all. Do you have any thoughts on what could help us with that? Practice, hurt and more practice. I think we have no real need to fear. I'm reminded of Shakespeare, but I'll sort of adapt to the Shakespeare thing. The thing is, in a hundred of it, come the three corners of the world in arms, and not shall shock us. Not shall make us through if England do herself, to herself, to rest but true. So, the movement has to remain true to itself, true to its ideals, and each individual order member and miter and friend has to remain true to that ideal, to themselves, as spiritual beings, as Buddhists. And then, you know, not can shock us. It's not shocking in the sense of, yeah, surprising, but giving us a jolt. So, next time you hear those lines of Shakespeare, which are often quoted, we'll just apply them in a bad way. So, if a million maras may assail us, if we're true to ourselves, true to our spiritual selves, so to speak, we can't be shaken, whether either individually or as a movement. There are lots of maras about, lots of them even down this high street. Indeed, okay, so we're in the final straight, I think. I'm the next one's from me, which you've said you get asked a lot. Do you have any regrets? Well, again, this is one of the questions I've often been asked, and I used to reply in this way, and there's several regrets that I have. These are more than my past regrets. One of the regrets I had was that I'd never learned to play a musical instrument. I've often wanted to, but they didn't ever seem time, certainly not in India, and of course the monks weren't supposed to play musical instruments anyway, would have been frowned upon. So, yes, I sometimes have wished that I'd learned to play a musical instrument, and of course then the next question usually is, well, what which instrument? Well, I sometimes thought the sitar, but then I also thought the harpsichord. They also thought the church organ. I have a sudden idea of you with a pair of bagpipes on your arm, but I like the sound of the bagpipes, I must say. I really do. And we had the bagpipes at the opening of the LBC, so we may remember. It was the brother of an order member who played the bagpipes and came down, but that's just by the way. But, yes, I've also regretted not being able to, yes, not really great. I've also regretted not learning more languages, and not very good at languages, or lots of all good to be frank. But I regretted that I wasn't able to learn more languages, especially when I travelled around Europe quite a bit. And what else have I regretted? Yes, regretted that I haven't been able to visit certain places that I would have liked to visit. I would have very much liked to visit Istanbul. And I would have very much liked to have been able to visit Mexico City, especially as we have a centre there now. But a very flourishing centre, but it looks as though that's going to be not possible. So I have these regrets. Well, there are the mild regrets, I must say. They're not really serious ones. And yes, there is that regret that it doesn't seem that I'll be able to finish the series of moments where I'll have to be satisfied with those four thick volumes. So these are regrets of omission, no regrets of commission? I don't think so. I mean, I could have given more talks, I suppose. I could have meditated more, I suppose. I could always say that, but no, I don't think so. Thank you. Douglas, what are your hopes for the movement? I suppose they're the first of the fears. So it should be pretty obvious. I obviously hope that the movement can expand, because I know that people who come into contact with the movement can really benefit from it. Over the past few years, I've received so many letters from people, some of them absolute newcomers and others who've been rituals for a short while, expressing their appreciation and gratitude for the FWBO and telling me what it has meant to them. There have been a few cases where people have said that literally had they not come in contact with the dilemma and the FWBO, the word of committee is suicide. The handful of letters I've had of that kind. And I know that people have been benefited to a very great extent those who've come into contact with the movement. So I hope it can spread more and more. Not because I think there's any intrinsic value in numbers. And numbers in any case bring down on danger. But I really hope that the movement can spread in the same state. Through the movement, the dilemma can be made more and more accessible to as many people as possible. Whether in this country or Europe or India or America or anywhere in fact in the world. This is my basic hope. And of course, in order to spread, we must have something to spread. You can't really teach the dilemma and that you're practicing the dilemma. So we're really going to bring the dilemma to others. We have to have the dilemma with us in our real and true and meaningful sense. So this is my hope for the movement. So, finally, of what are you most proud and we could put proud in inverted commas if you like. Well, this brought me mind of something that one of my old teachers used to say that is Yogi Chen who lived as a Hamid. He used to talk about Buddha pride. He used to say one shouldn't have Buddha pride. But of course, one had to have some realization as the basis of that pride. So there is a positive sense in which one can use the word proud, I think, or pride. I think in this context, I think one can. So what am I most proud of? Oh, I must be careful here. I suppose most people would expect me to say that the fact that I started the FWA. But I'm not so sure about that, except partially. I think I'm most proud really to go back to something that I said before. I'm most proud of the work I was able to do among the ex-untouchables, the followers of Dr. Empedkar who had become Buddhists. Because that also links up with the FWA because we have our Indian wing, which is called TBMHD. So really, they're mostly supposed to do the same thing in the end. That all the years ago in the 50s and early 60s, I was traveling around Central India, Western India, North West India. I was doing lectures, receiving people into the Dharma, and then of course I came to England. And for 12 years, I had no context there. And there was a big gap, and then of course local Mithra went. And he started up activities there on a quite big scale eventually. So my old work and my new work, so to speak, came together. My work among the ex-untouchables in India, and my work here in the West. So I think probably I can say that I'm most proud of that. My work in India, in the 50s and 60s, and my work in this country after that. I'm proud of course within my hopes in your single inverted commas. Those inverted commas are very, very useful, vital of punctuation. Yes, I think that's about it. Thank you. Yes, I can also say something a little bit more. In the days when there were large families, yeah? Well, you might have 10 or 15 children, and you might have more, 2 or 3 dozen grandchildren and so on and so forth. You'll be very proud of that, yeah? So I think I can be proud of the fact that I've got so many spiritual descendants. But I've got many spiritual sons and daughters and even grand sons and grand daughters in the way of coordination. And I believe I have at least one or two examples of a great grand daughter. Yes. That is to say someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by me. Yes, so I think I can be proud of the fact that I have such a large spiritual family. I wish, of course, this is a sacred hearing in quite an ear present this evening. Thank you very much. It strikes me that it's the time of year for family reunions. Many of them aren't quite as harmonious and uplifting. Well, yes, it strikes me that you've been able to contribute to such a huge number of people's lives being improved, actually. That is an extraordinary thing to have achieved in life time. And thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. My first outing of this sort since the end of my illness, my first event in the public sector. We hope you enjoyed the talk. Please come and help us keep this free at freebuddhistaudio.com/community. And thank you. [MUSIC] [BLANK_AUDIO]