Some Reflections on Change

Dhammaketu, Ghent, Belgium

First published in ‘Articles Shabda’, February 2004

On reading Shabda in an isolated spot like mine, one could get easily the impression the Order and the movement are almost collapsing. But on the European Chairmen's Meeting I am just back from I heard reports of growth and strength, corresponding to my experience: not just here in Ghent, but in all the centres I visit at times, I see the Dharma at work, and thriving sanghas.

In trying to make sense of these two - mutually exclusive - experiences of the movement, I had the idea they both go back to what essentially distinguishes the (F)WBO from other Buddhist movements, one following from living up to it, the other from departing from it.

What makes us different is Bhante's insistence on living the spiritual life, not as an compartment of life, but enclosing the full life in this civilisation, irrespective of life style.

And to me his most outstanding contribution to Buddhist thinking is that he saw the consequences of this in the relationships between those who lead such a life: he formulated the difference between a group and a spiritual community, and in doing so he added a sociological dimension to Buddhist thinking.

This dimension was absent in the civilisations in which Buddhism developed and prospered - as it was in ours up to a couple of centuries ago. Buddhist tradition has an immensely rich view on the spiritual development of an individual, but very little on his relationships with others who do the same. It offers an immense treasure of meditations and teachings for personal development, but spiritual relationship stays limited to the teacher-pupil relationship, or to essentially functioning in a group, mostly of monks.

Bhante spelled out the difference between a mere group member, who does what the group expects, and the individual, who engages in spiritual life out of his commitment. He pointed out the consequences of this for another dimension of life which is absent in the traditional analysis: communication. Truthful communication is dealing with one another as individuals, not as group members. And he spelled out the difference between a spiritual community of individuals and a group, however positive it may be.

Individual and Sangha arise wherever the dharma is practised seriously, it is not limited to the (F)WBO, but mostly this happens at a pre-conscious level, as a by-product of the spiritual life so to speak. The secret of the (F)WBO is that we foster this process consciously. This is what attracted me to the Order and the movement, from my very first contacts onward, this is what I see at work wherever I go in the movement, and this is what accounts for our extraordinary success.

Inversely, I am sorry to say, much of the moaning, doubts, hurt feelings, messages of doom and impending collapse one comes across seems to be largely the expression of the disappointment of group members, feeling wronged in what others did to them, and feeling the wrongdoers are not properly punished. In as far as this is the case, it has been fed by tendencies to establish groups - and not always very positive ones - instead of spiritual communities. The most devastating expression of this was found in Croydon in the 80ies, but Croydon was not an isolated case.

Falling back on the group and its norms is a tendency we all have - it is an expression of the third fetter, faith in doing the right things, turning means into goals - and we all have to keep working to avoid it taking over. This tendency is conspicuously present in our structures, and I am afraid this is partly a negative inheritance we have from Bhante.

From the beginnings of the movement on he set out to coach people to live up as individuals, and encouraged them to set up structures that would underpin this life: the 3 C's (Centres, Communities, and ‘Coops’ ie Team-Based Right Livelihood businesses), the single-sex principle, no other teachers.... In the early years of the movement these were highly helpful - if not even downright essential - to the great majority, as he was starting from zero (or even from minus one thousand!). But their very success meant that they tended later on to harden into absolutes, i.e. into group norms, and gradually new ones were added, e.g. exacting criteria to become a mitra and a rigid ordination process, and the spiritual development of people tended to be measured by their compliance with them. And I am afraid Bhante may not always have seen to what extent it was a group process, and may have encouraged it unduly.

(Just a footnote: what I describe was a tendency, to which there were luckily numerous exceptions, and me being an order member is a testimony to this. I was ordained in almost no time, although I was an irregular in absolutely all aspects of the group norm).

The present reform (2004) I see as growing out of these group aspects, which are in contradiction with Bhante's fundamental vision, and have lost all their supporting value. Replacing the ossified mitra system by a mitra community has been the first go at it, and by and large it had an enormously positive impact. And I see a few more changes of that kind to come or already on their way. Some of these are:

- stopping seeing the 3 C's and the single-sex principle as normative. (Read carefully, I have already been misunderstood on this point, I am not advocating getting rid of them because I do not like them!). The present growing disaffection with them is in all probability just a reaction against their normative imposition. They are valuable instruments, and I am sure they soon will be on the up again, but they will be taken up only where people experience them as helpful, not because they need to do so to get ordained fast, or something.

- seeing the preparation for ordination as a function of the needs and strengths of the aspirants, not as part of what a standardized ordination "process" has to offer.

- the establishment of genuine leadership within the Order and the movement. To develop ourselves and bring the Dharma to beings we need structures, and these need leadership.

Leadership is freely accepted by the true individual, because he operates out of trust instead of suspicion and fear of power. And it is freely given by the true individual who is entrusted with it, because he does not look for power or domination to prop up a self. To establish such leadership we all will need to get rid of negative group attitudes towards the "top"- both rejecting leadership, and slavishly accepting it - and those entrusted with it will need the courage to exercise it, especially when the going is a bit rough, as it is at the present.

These are a few reflections on what is going on at the present, and I hope they may be helpful for the future. May all beings be happy!