|
|
|
 |
13 June, 2016
This is in reference to this.
It is a letter of the kind that is not mailed but yet written.
There is, my friend, Gotama the contemplative, a son of the Sakyans, gone forth from a Sakyan clan. Now, this excellent report about the honourable Gotama has been spread about: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the worlds, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' I have gone forth out of dedication to that Blessed One. That Blessed One is my teacher. It is of that Blessed One's Dhamma that I approve.
~ Response by Pukussati to a query by the Buddha on 'who's Dhamma does he approve?' unaware that he is speaking to 'Gotama the contemplative'; as recorded in the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 140, translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
In plants & herbs, in all existent beings, I (Agni) have deposited the embryo of increase. I have engendered all progeny on earth, and sons in the women thereafter.
~ Rig Veda, 10.183.3; extracted from The Mind Like Fire Unbound: An Image in the Early Buddhist Discourses, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Dhamma Dana Publications, Barre, Massachusetts, 1993; pg. 17. The full hymn can be accessed here.
Dear Devdutt,
Your point of Ram being incorrectly and unfairly labelled misogynist is well taken. Incorrectly, because the term 'misogynist' proclaims presence of a systematic and consistent tendency towards women which shields a false sense of superiority; a haughtiness borne of this sense; and the carelessness and looseness in conduct that such haughtiness enjoins. To use a particular incident to imply a specific innate trait in a person stands the risk of falling in between the cracks of logic, unless backed by factual scrutiny.
Unfairly, because if this loose standard is applied in characterising one personality, the same standard needs to be applied to other personalities of the same order and nature. But here one needs to tread with caution: the operative words are of the same order and nature. It is quite probable that in the eagerness to treat the unfairness to Ram we may end up being unfair to the Buddha (and Jesus too). To cure the unfairness of the poor, the rich certainly have to be dragged in because both are tied in intricate ways. However, the tie that binds Ram and the Buddha is one of perception in the minds of a group of men -- of seeing both as men of exceptional ability and accomplishments. However, ties of perception may not necessarily be ties supported by the dictates of reason and common-sense.
So, on this point we must strive to see if, indeed, it is fair to drag the Buddha into the exercise of proving the innocence of Ram.
For this, we must understand the mechanism that is followed to put the Buddha in the same perceptual mould of 'misogynist' as that applied by some to Ram. It is a mechanism of 'listing of incidents and events to showcase a consistent pattern'. By itself, it is an important mechanism, except that a list of events without context results in the sum of events being even less than the sum of events. Thus, the article opens itself to an irreversible irony: underlying the article's issue with Ram being misogynist is a grievance that this labelling is done out of context. The article actually applies the same cut of the knife to the Buddha by conjoining the Buddha with Ram.
As a result, it puts the onus completely on the reader: if you like the Buddha and are not willing to admit the Buddha as misogynist then dare you also not treat Ram as misogynist. However, if you admit to Ram being misogynist then you also have to treat the Buddha as misogynist. In the process, the hapless reader may end-up forgiving both Ram and the Buddha and start believing that being misogynist is quite the order of the day.
We may end up serving no one and no purpose here.
At this stage, we can exercise a simple but latent option: We can ask ourselves how should we really use myths around personalities related to religions? We can use myths as a device to conserve certain memories of personalities and use them as a means to arouse a desire to be drawn towards these very personalities and internalize them. Through a loving intimacy of them one can then start befriending their doctrine. However, a point comes when we have to cross over the flood-of-the-myths-around-personalities to shift attention to purely the doctrine and its self-practice. That is, from a student learning a vocation, we have to become a professional practicing one.
This is in stark contrast to asking ourselves: how are others actually using myths around personalities? Being drawn to this question will lead us to making myths come alive and making them an object to get attracted to, to be repulsed by, to defend, to attack. In short, applying the usual habits of the mind to myths, thus further tripping over our already tripped-up minds.
The choice is neatly arranged on the table.
Since it appears that the article has selected the second option on the menu, we must reluctantly proceed along a thorny, uneven and convoluted path. However, to ease our convolutions let us go back to the list of incidents and events narrated in the article and attempt to shelter them under a canopy of some kind of a context.
The list self-confidently notes,
1. More rules for Bhikkhunis than Bhikkhus
2. Codes of conduct enjoined on Bhikkhus (and even Bhikkhunis) as far as taking precautions to a) avoid and b) restrain when confronted with the sexual impulse.
3. Appreciation for individuals who have managed to rise above the primal desire and craving for charms of women (more generally, opposite sex), sexual intercourse and so forth.
4. Rebuke by a teacher to a pupil for straying away from the path of celibate restraint.
5. Restrictions on who to admit and who not to admit to the order (including trans-sexuals).
6. Siddhartha Gotama (before he became the Buddha, or more realistically, 'Gotama the contemplative') leaving his wife in search of something.
We are going to consciously not dwell at length on two other aspects that the article seems to take an issue against:
~ ~ ~
1. How the social milieu down the ages got affected because of the kind of conduct encouraged by the Buddhist precepts which in turn valourised celibacy giving it a 'masculine and power form'. We ignore this because poor Buddha, or for that matter, poor Ram, had little control over what the masses end up doing with the legacy they leave behind (Ram Janmabhoomi movement is one glaring water-shed example in modern history). They have even lesser control of how the historians and mythologists end up interpreting their actions and the framework which they use to link them with what happens in the BP (before personality) and AP (after personality) eras.
As far as a religion is concerned, it is the king who adopts a religion who changes the history and mythology of the religion more than the original founder. Fortunately, in case of dominant world religions we always have the doctrine which can be mined through the agency of common-sense to really get at the nub of that religion, saving the lay men from the clutches of kings, historians and mythologists.
2. Abandoning sex for a "higher purpose" be it enlightenment, spirituality, or service-to-the-nation. We ignore this compound assertion for a few reasons. The first is that to place enlightenment, spirituality and service-to-the-nation in the same bracket is to commit a linguistic sacrilege. Secondly, if abandoning of sex had nothing to do with enlightenment then one could admit of this charge. However, if it is indeed true in practice that when one practices X (abandonment of craving for physical desire) it eventually opens up the way for Y then the charge stands on false footing.
This is where one needs to exert oneself even more to remember that abandoning sex for spirituality (not of the god-men type where the god-men abandon one form of physical desire to engage in another form of desire to build a business empire) is very different from abandoning sex for service-to-the-nation. One is at pains to ask how abandoning sex serves the nation.
Rather, the nation is best served by providing creative and constructive means to fulfill the impulses of the young & old in a manner such that the civilization propsers, and it continues its march, for better or for worse. Those who abandon sex in service-to-the-nation relive and relish those same impulses in a more brutal and inhumane form. One must, necessarily, make a distinction between suppression, repression, abandonment, escape and conquest.
~ ~ ~
Having rescued enlightenment and spirituality from the clutches of service-to-the-nation, or, more specifically, the Buddha, Jesus and Ram from the clutches of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, we can move on to the plane of reason. Reason would say that the measure of a man is the philosophy he carries, and how he uses this philosophy to navigate the currents of his time. So it is pointless to assess the Buddha and Ram without their respective philosophical under-pinnings. The philosophy of the Buddha, at least from the age of 36 onwards till his death at 80, was nothing but his doctrine; which also applies to the sangh he initiated during his period of preaching and teaching.
So, to the philosophy we must turn to resolve four questions for ourselves:
1. Was the philosophy indeed misogynist by any stretch of imagination?
2. Are the events listed in the article at variance with this philosophy, or are they a logical outcrop of the philosophy?
3. If they are indeed logical outcrop of the philosophy, are these events really meant to change the norms of society (much like service-to-the-nation), or are meant to serve a personal quest?
4. Is this personal quest for the unchallenged goal of 'Un(nir)-binding(vana)', easily amenable to aspiration, understanding and practice by the masses, or for those really ready to submit themselves to the rigours that its practice demands a-priori?
Instead of trying to answer each of these questions like a student answering an exam-paper, let us see if we can follow a different track of understanding.
1. Why did the young Siddhartha Gotama leave his home? Traditional accounts tell us the tale of suffering he witnessed. Ambedkar's Buddha and His Dhamma narrates young Siddhartha getting caught up in the socio-political upheavel of his republic and taking parivraja as a result.
A third possibility suggests itself: that both of the foregoing accounts are true but also that young Gotama was a bright, ambitious, intelligent and aspiring young man. Like every such young man his heart would yearn to engage in something challenging, something that would stretch him and his abilities to the hilt. When he looked around and about he saw other intelligent young men choosing a homeless existence over a householder's. It is quite likely that he was very much attracted to taking this route at the still confusing and philosophically turbulent age of 29.
We can layer a fourth possibility over the third one: he was simply bored of what life had to offer him on a day to day basis.
There is a fifth possibility that may resonate more strongly in current times and which is an extension of the canonical one: That young Siddhartha was genuinely moved by his own reflections on the general state of the world and human life. When young men at the ripe age of 29 are in grips of such powerful currents of emotional thoughts they are moved to immediate and urgent action, for better or for worse.
Modern history of India shows highly intelligent and sensitive young men and women, who were slighted by the way their immediate society treated its own masses, getting drawn to political action and/or artistic expression of the left kind. Then there were intelligent young men and women who were drawn towards the opposite end of the political spectrum for a different kind of reason: they felt slighted at how the society ignored what they thought was a sparklingly bright and glorious cultural heritage of which they were meant to be the rightful creators, inheritors, interpreters and guardians. Being inheritors of such a rich cultural heritage, they thought it only fair to presume that they exclusively possessed the right to tell the masses on how to resurrect a great nation out of the remnant ruins of the colonial misadventure of the Western type. Western because there is also one of the Indigenous variety that the masses have been re-discovering every single day since 1947.
We are indeed fortunate that young Siddhartha, if we accept the fifth possibility, was drawn towards a non-political philosophical route: the kind that led him straight into the deepest truths that the mind had to offer. In turn, he left behind some empirical truths for every mind to be drawn to, investigate and confirm for itself.
One is at full liberty to make one's non-canonical speculative pick. Whichever way one chooses one must remember: Siddhartha left to find something beyond, and intellectually higher than, what his life could offer him at that point in time. In times of respectful understanding, it would be called a philosophical churning. At other times, it would be called abandoning responsibility.
2. When young Siddhartha left his home, his parents, his wife and his just-born son, was he creating a ground-breaking historical precedence? No, he was simply following a common samanic tradition current in his time, in which men exchanged their existence as a householder for a homeless one. It is interesting that even Jesus had to abandon, or rather seclude, himself in the desert for a few days to receive the message. Or, that Muhammad had to seek the solitude of Mount Hira every evening and every night in the cold and harsh desert to prepare himself to receive the earliest revelations of the Quran.
So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life --- and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces --- I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from home life into homelessness.
~ Ariyapariyasena Sutta (The Noble Search), Majjhima Nikaya 26; translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
If a man leaves his family he is not breaking new ground. Yes, he could be chided for being insensitive, self-obsessed, and self-possessed. But being labelled 'misogynist' would be jumping to a different alphabet in the dictionary. It is surprising that when highly paid investment bankers, management consultants, C-level executives and entrepreneurs-in-the-silicon-valley-mould are entrapped in a whirlpool of life which severs their time with family, it is called being ambitious, successful and having arrived in life; or in even more poignant terms: doing the duty to their shareholders, to their company's brand & repute. Stretched to an extreme: being entrepreneurial is a calling in service-to-the-nation and society-at-large.
Meanwhile, when young men, long back, left home to seek philosophical truth, of the noble kind, they unknowingly become vulnerable to being branded as misogynist by posterity.
3. Did young Siddhartha really receive enlightenment? For the reasoned believer, yes. For the unreasoned believer, yes. For the reasoned faithless, the response would be 'I need to confirm it myself'. For the unreasoned faithless, the answer is of course it is all hum-bug.
4. To be on the safer side let us make a sincere attempt to be a combination of a reasoned believer with a mix of scepticism thrown it. Thus, accordingly, we should question: what exactly was this enlightenment about? It was an enlightenment of seeing the law of kamma in action in real-time and being able to see all its manifest and logical cosmic significance. In more accurate, non-grandiose and non-philosophical terms, it was about this/that conditionality.
5. What is this/that conditionality? It is the crux (in the vernacular, nichod) of the chain-of-causation, an ancient formula known before the Buddha, and known after the Buddha. It goes something like this: from the six-sensory media (five physical senses + intellect) arises contact; from contact arises feeling; feeling arouses craving; craving (literally greed) leads to desire & infatuation; infatuation leads to an instinct for acquisition; instinct for acquisition builds up an intent for possession; what one possesses one holds onto dearly; what one holds onto dearly one defends or demands more of --- in general acts upon or for; how one acts, one bears the logical consequences of; the consequences take shape through fresh round of contact with the six-sensory media; and the cycle goes on.
6. What has this go to do with disproving the charge of 'misogyny'? Because we are trying to search if there is any seed of misogyny in the doctrine and practice proposed by the Buddha.
7. The chain of causation seems logical. What is so great about it as a piece of philosophy? Well, those striving for enlightenment (and not service-to-the-nation) will be forced to ask themselves a very philosophical question: is there a way to break out of this chain for good? To which the experience of the Buddha serves as a sigh-of-relief: Yes. If he did it as a human being, why cannot I too do it?
8. And what did the Buddha really do? He figured out (the correct term is, 'discerned') that there is indeed a weak link in this kamma-circuit. It is at the point where craving is aroused because of feeling. The presence of feeling does not logically demand that craving be aroused, unless and until, there is ignorance at play at that point in time. Thus, really, it is ignorance that sustains craving. And ignorance is within the command of reason and effort founded on, well, intense desire to break free of the chain itself.
The qualifier 'intense' should give the reader who is awake a hint as to why Siddhartha left home.
9. What is this ignorance and the cure for it? The ignorance is simply about knowing, understanding, seeing and remembering at every moment what are the entrapments of desire which lead to suffering; and what does not constitute an act of suffering itself, or one which can lead to suffering. Once this understanding is mastered, it is knowing how to really make the effort to escape it, which, when one applies oneself to the task, one will realize, is, in the final analysis, about cultivating a skill to develop dispassion towards every kind of entrapment. Much like an accomplished artisan who develops a skill that makes him excel at his craft. There is no deep philosophy for mythology, or for that matter philosophers, to pound here.
10. And pray, what are the kinds of entrapments? There are entrapments of being caught in intellectual views (much like the present political discourse globally is); being caught in sensual pleasures including physical craving for the body of another, for excessive hunger, the sway of sound on the ears, the sway of the visual form on the eyes, the sway of that comforting, delicate and sensuous touch on the skin and every other conceivable bodily sensation that can either bind or repel; being caught in reacting to these feelings of pleasure and pain without any forethought; and even if one escapes all of these entrapments, it is about the entrapment for the perceptual categories of 'becoming' and 'non-becoming'.
Ended the old,
there is no new taking birth:
Dispassioned their minds
towards future becoming,
they, without seed,
inclined to no-growth,
the wise, they go out
like this flame.
~ Ratana Sutta: Treasures, The Khuddakapatha 6, translated from Pali to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
11. If dispassion is what one has to strive to achieve, isn't this a morbid philosophy to follow and encourage? Wouldn't the effect of such a philosophy on an individual and society be damaging? Yes, if dispassion was understood to mean a complete disenchantment with absolutely everything, which, in turn, results in slowly & brutally sucking the life out of desire. The effect would be similar to a doctor sucking the life out of a patient by making him reliant on a constant dose of medication -- all in the name of treating the patient.
However, dispassion here means changing the very nature of desire. By moving desire away from its present preoccupations, the exercise in purposeful dispassion forces desire to question itself: is there something that can provide me greater happiness, greater contentment, greater calm, greater singleness of mind, greater power of penetration, greater joy, greater pleasure, greatest serenity, greater equanimity? Only once desire disengages itself from something of lesser potency and starts an active and persistent search for something of higher potency does it stand a chance of rising. Dispassion from preoccupations that can injure is not morbid. It is liberating.
"There is a a widespread feeling that Buddhism gives an unfair valuation of sensuality and is blind to the positive beauties of sensual objects, but this is simply not true. The Buddha admitted that sensual objects have their beauty and can give a measure of satisfaction. He pointed out, however, that beauty of an object is not the whole story, for all beautiful objects must decay. If one's happiness is based on them, then that happiness is in for a fall."
~ Part III/D, Wings to Awakening, Thanissaro Bhikkhu accessible here.
To use a slightly delicately brutish description: dispassion begins by making desire infatuated with the aesthetics of renunciation.
12. Doesn't this kind of preoccupation with dispassion-from-worldly-affairs, and passion-for-enlightenment, create an army of selfish individuals? It depends on what society counts as selfish. Remaining pre-occupied in the vocations and actions of society on a day to day basis may seem engaging in society, engaging with fellow humans and thus moving the agenda of the civilization forward. However, the moot question is: does it always and surely benefit society, and more than the society, the particular individual?
On the other hand, if engaging oneself in modifying one's behaviour in a certain manner which ceases to create fresh issues, problems, verbal duels, stealth, stealing, lying, fighting, killing, war, harm to nature is deemed a very individual and selfish pre-occupation then one has to ask in wonder: 'If there are two choices available to a man: commit an action and perpetuate the cycle of kamma; or avoid committing that action and instead learn to commit an action, that from any angle and philosophy, comes out as superior, what should the man choose?'
13. If dispassion is what the mind has to really strive to perfect, then shouldn't one be extremely heedful about how one behaves with no one around, and with anyone around, including (and, especially) members of the opposite sex? Yes, because what we are really talking about is cleansing of the mind of the last vestiges of entrapments. Even a very diffused, blurry, and hardly-discernible-to-the-naked-eye stain left behind will only provide fuel, however feeble, for the continuance of the chain-of-causation.
A clarification is immediately in order:
"... the Buddha defined sensuality not as the objects of the senses, but as the passion and delight that one feels for ones intentions toward such objects. Although the objects of the senses are neither good or evil per se, the act of passion and delight forms a bond on the mind, disturbing its immediate peace and ensuring its continued entrapment in the round of rebirth and redeath. Only by separating the desire from its object can one directly perceive the truth of these teachings."
~ Part III/D, Wings to Awakening
Avoiding the temptations of the opposite sex is not deriding, ignoring, condemning, insulting the opposite sex. It is actually chiding, controlling, restraining one's own irrational habits and animalistic instincts of mind with regard to the opposite sex. When interpreted and analyzed from the perspective of impact on society, it may seem misogynistic to those who have yet to fully enter the state of being when one exerts oneself in the direction suggested by the Buddha. It is, at times, fruitful to suspend penning a critique of a movie till such time as one has gone through the experience of making a movie oneself.
The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality,
not the beautiful sensual pleasures
found in the world.
The passion for his resolves is a man's sensuality.
The beauties remain as they are in the world,
while the wise in this regard,
subdue their desire.
~ Nibbehdika Sutta: Penetrative, Anguttara Nikaya 6.63, translated from the Pali to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
14. But why should a bhikkhuni be more careful than a bhikkhu? Much like a rich men should be more responsible about how he spends his wealth. If a philosophy enjoins more responsibility on a rich man compared to a middle-class man, is such a philosophy to be deemed anti-rich? No, it is to be deemed a philosophy that is striving to create a certain social order, just like the practice of vanquishing entrapments is striving to liberate man and women who follow it. Being discreet about one's wealth (whether material, physical, spiritual, emotional, or intellectual) is a given. And if there are precepts that enjoin and enforce it, it only serves the end goal better.
But it is not only a bhikkhuni who should be more careful about how she treads in front of others. In general, any individual who is attached to the physicality of his or her own body needs to be very conscious of how he or she treads and how that physicality in turn shapes the likes, dislikes, speech, and acts of that individual in even trivial matters of day to day living.
For,
A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that...wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a women does not transcend her femininity.
A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that...wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
~ Sannoga Sutta: Bondage, Anguttara Nikaya 7.48, translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
The hasty critic should note that the operative word here is transcend, and not repress or condemn.
Momentary reflection on the notion of 'discretion' will clear the airs behind this reasoning. The reflection will yield an insight along the lines of 'exercising discretion on account of a self-imposed resolve is remarkably superior to exercising discretion out of compulsion, or a need to conform to societal customs.' In not very remote times, a solid middle-class value was to earn righteously, save earnestly, and spend with discretion. The result of gradual abandonment of that value is that in other aspects of our life too we have lost the ability to appreciate the quality of discretion and suitably cultivate our faculty of discernment.
The hastiness in our impatient and ill-informed criticism very much follows from this.
15. But why are the precepts written in such minutae detail? Because to remove ignorance requires an incredibly heightened alertness of mind. And this alertness of mind comes down to: 'If I have moved my leg to the right, I must make note of it.' 'If I bend down, I must make a note that I am bending down.' 'Sitting down, I must note that I am sitting down. Standing up I must note that I am standing up.' 'Speaking I must note I am speaking, whether what I am speaking is appropriate, properly-timed, beneficial to the listener.' 'Seeing a form with the eye I must be fully alert to the effect of that form on the alertness, mindfulness, discernment and other critical faculties of my mind.' Thus, the precepts are not an end in themselves. They are a means to fine-tune attention to the point of extremely refined discernment and prepare the mind to 'enter into jhana (dhyana)'.
16. In that case, is it fair to take the precepts as the enforced code of conduct for the society at large? No. The precepts should be viewed exactly for what they are: a set of exercises to develop higher learning for those intent on learning (monks). It is not meant to challenge and change the norms and nature of society itself. That task is best left to politicians, social reformers, prophets, and kings worshipped as gods. Confusing precepts-for-monks as rules-of-social-conduct-for-the-masses is missing the point.
17. Then, what are the masses suppose to do? Well, the masses could be lay followers who would simply abstain from killing; stealing; lying; indulging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, or, in modern times, any other singularly intimate and committed partnership; and trying to avoid going over-board with regard to material and physical comforts of life.
The word, simply, though is a misnomer. It is excruciatingly hard to successfully cross this milestone where in one does not intentionally lie, intentionally deceive, intentionally 'use' / mis-use / manipulate' others for one's selfish gain, does not get angry even when a jerk bangs your car. If meeting the precept-test-of-lay-followers can be such a pain, then imagine meeting the precept-test-for-the-monks. And to top it up, imagine trying to burden the hapless believers and non-believers with the precepts-for-the-monks. Even the Buddha would be a little amused, if not outright surprised, at such a careless mis-understanding of his teachings.
18. In that case, this doesn't seem very misogynist, does it? No, not from any angle. To repeat once again: confusion arises only when one mistakes the precepts for monks as rules of society for the masses.
19. But then what about the charge of Buddha not returning to his wife after enlightenment? The fact remains that after the experience of enlightenment Siddhartha Gotama changed into the Buddha. If we treat enlightenment and spirituality with the measure of gravity they deserve, then one would realize this was no ordinary transformation, but a fundamental and deep-rooted one. The standards of behaviour that Siddhartha Gotama could have been held to account for, the Buddha could not be caged in those. Because, if indeed the doctrine of the Buddha holds, then, the dispassion that preceded his awakening would have erased all categories of social labels to which ordinary men and women will adhere and cling to along with the memories and passions those categories are linked to in the minds and hearts of such men and women. Did he never go back to Yashodhara and Rahula? Of course he visited them, except he did not stay. He even ordained Rahula and step by step taught him the dhamma. But he did not show partiality to Rahula simply because he was his son. He treated him on par as he would treat every other able and honest member of his sangh.
20. Why approve and appreciate examples of monks who show no passion for their wives and children? If a student excels in his or her study, should a teacher ignore him, condemn him, or commend him? Of course, the teacher would point to his example to arouse other students to exert themselves more. It does not mean that the example of that student is valid outside the classroom to all and sundry. There is no point calling out the example of a student who excels in mathematics to a student skilled in and intent on making a career in tennis. Similarly, if the Buddha appreciated a monk who simply failed to be moved by the pleas of his wife and children, or aroused some of his disciples (who already had decided on their own accord to leave their householder's existence) by pointing to such examples, he was simply speaking to a select audience for a very specific purpose. By no means are such examples to be applied as standards of conduct and a milestone for all and sundry to follow without fully understanding the reason and context behind the Buddha's approval, or condemnation of certain acts.
If there are individuals who do misunderstand, then one has to take issue with them and not the Buddha.
21. Why was he hesistant to admit women into the sangh? It is a million dollar question. Apparently, on the insistence of Ananda he ultimately consented to the entry of women into the Sangh, with his own foster mother (Prajapati Gotami) being among the early entrants. But once he consented, there is little evidence to show that he showed any partiality to Bhikkhus over Bhikkhunis. Indeed, some of the most important and deep suttas are articulated through the agency of Bhikkhunis.
There are various theories possible for the initial hesitation he had. Of which the most feasible seems to be a combination of two common-sensical possibilities. One is that he was simply following the practices of his contemporaries, i.e., other teachers and the sanghs that they had founded. There is enough evidence to show that the Buddha never did want to ruffle the very foundations of society. When there were complaints against him admitting fighting fit soldiers to the sangh and drawing them away from the field of duty, he forbade his disciplies to freely admit soldiers to the sangh. Similarly, there is no active political intervention by the Buddha except on one occasion when the chieftain of a rival republic was about to go to war with the Sakyas (Buddha's own republic). Mostly, the Buddha preferred to stay out of the general political and social currents of his time, and focused on preaching his teaching in as non-confrontational a manner as possible.
The second possibility stems from a dilemma that will confront the manager of every organization of people. Because that is what a sangh was on a day to day basis: it had to be managed and governed like some kind of an organization. Now in an organization that develops and grows through voluntary membership and association between people, there is a singular danger of the wrong kind of members sneaking in. In context of a sangh, who would such members be? They would be members who would join the sangh not out of a genuine desire to learn and practice. Their motivations could be many: to shirk off being conscripted by the army; to hide from the law after committing a crime; to avoid the responsibilities of family life; to simply while away some time.
Now imagine it to be a co-ed sangh. One more non-genuine primal motivation is added to the range of reasons to join a sangh: an open invitation to associate with members of the opposite sex. For what better opportunity than the relatively liberal climate of a sangh to have a little adventure?
For those who think that 300+ precepts for the monks were quite an ordeal would do well to remember that during his time the Buddha was often chided, and at times mocked, by his peers for the relatively relaxed standards that his Sangh had with regard to members. It was also a time of the flourishing of the Nigantha (Jain) sect and a general appreciation amongst the population for the austere life that an enlightened being, or those striving for enlightenment had to lead. This stood in stark contrast to the 'middle-way' that the Buddha advocated. This lack of hard-nosed austerity in the doctrine, practice and governance of the Sangh was one of the sore points of difference between him and his cousin Devdutta (among many others including jealousy) which always kept the risk of politicisation of the sangh knocking at the fringes. By all accounts, there was enough sustained pressure on the Buddha to make the governance of his Sangh much more stricter and confirm with the norms of the times.
When considering the possibility of admitting women, homosexuals, trans-sexuals into the Sangh, it is very much feasible that these considerations would have weighed at the back of his mind. For in making such decisions, he was acting as a prudent manager, and not as a philosopher or an enlightened being. He was far removed from the realm of awakening when dealing with such concerns and he had to locate them in the social context in which he found himself in. He could not afford to take a naively idealistic stand when his stated aim clearly was not to reform society but simply to propagate a message to as far wide as was feasible, and for as long a time period as possible after his death.
For that he needed to leave behind an informal institution that would survive the vicissitudes of time and transmit the message. Any decisions that would have risked the longevity of this institution would have been a matter of serious consideration for him. Indeed, he is said to have told Ananda after he accepted admission of women into the Sangh: 'This Sangh would have probably lasted for 1,000 years. Now it will last for not more than 500 years.'. In making this statement we can infer his reference was not to the fact that women were admitted, but to the fact that admission of members of another sex would substantially increase the risk of future members joining the Sangh with absolutely the wrong motivations.
If anyone finds it difficult to grapple his mind around this management issue, a good modern analogy would help: a co-ed hostel in a university campus. The temptations on both sides of the sexual divide to cross over the fine line are many. Further, the university itself offers many an opportunity for students to join for the wrong reason: placements, acquisition of brand on resume, simply to pass time, and if nothing else, simply to perpetuate one's existence through a meaningless Ph.D. -- much divorced from the desire to learn that lies at the foundation of the very notion of a university.
By being hesitant to the entry of women into the Sangh the Buddha was by no means barring access to his doctrine. The doctrine was accessible to every one and all. There were many touch-points when the members of Sangh would interface with the laity during the course of a day: especially when being asked to take their one meal during the day at someone's house. Such occasions were ripe for all members of the household to benefit from the verbal interaction with the Buddha or any of the members of the Sangh.
Further, if he was indeed misogynist he would have held the view that women are simply not capable of enlightenment. But there is nothing in the doctrine, in the literary sources, and modern experiences of individuals and groups that are practicing the Buddha's teaching of such a prejudice. For if the Buddha had strongly believed in this, he would have been categorical in his denial of entry to women into the Sangh. His hesitation was contextual and not categorical, and managerial and not philosophical. Else we would not have had the Bhikkhuni Alavika, Bhikkhuni Soma, Bhikkhuni Gotami, Bhikkhuni Vijaya, Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna, Bhikkhuni Cala, Bhikkhuni Upacala, Bhikkhuni Sisupacala, Bhikkhuni Sela and Bhikkhuni Vajira, among others, being enshrined in the Pali Canon.
As a matter of sweet irony the Pali Canon itself puts the answer to the question of 'Can women attain awakening?' in the mouth of Bhikkhuni Soma:
What difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.
Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' ---
that's who Mara's
fit to address.
~ Soma Sutta: Sister Soma, Samyutta Nikaya 5.2, translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here
Nothing is more effective than a woman telling an accuser that the one he accuses of being misogynist is indeed not.
If we take a very logical stand-point we can simply state: had the Buddha been a woman, she would have strongly resisted upsetting the social order as well as the mixing of members of opposite sex, and thus been hesitant to the entry of men into the Sangh. Poor her: she would have been labelled an activist feminist by posterity. But then the bigger question is: would a patriarchal Kshatriya society have produced a female Buddha in the first place?
Would a patriarchal society have enabled a woman to break with her household, to roam all over the place for six years searching for an answer, under-going excruciating austerities in the company of male monks, and finally come to enlightenment? The possibility exists, as it always does. Reality unfortunately informs us otherwise. Every husband should look into the deepest recesses of his heart and ask himself this very question: if he has a wife and a child, would he be comfortable if his wife did exactly this? Those who find it difficult to address this question at their door-step should avoid bothering much with looking over into the courtyard of history expecting to find the answer.
Further, those who understand the import of this question will understand the difference between the mission of liberating individuals and the mission of reforming society. Men and women who wish to liberate individuals are well advised to avoid pontificating much on reforming society. The former is a do-able science;, the latter is an ideal for the artist to dream which ultimately is completely subverted by the charlatans of the very society the ideal was meant to influence and change.
~ ~ ~
Even if the charge of misogyny can be ruled out, there are those who will be insistent on pointing out that while the Buddha was not outright misogynist, he still treated women as inferior. This is a very difficult charge to counter-act, for one because this charge is based on inferential evidence, i.e., of trying to draw inferences based on documented instances of the Buddha's interactions with women.
To this charge, only one response is possible: often our interpretation of behaviour of others in specific situations is based on the way we would tend to behave in those situations. It never strikes most individuals that, it is quite possible that others show the same behaviour but may be coming from a very different frame of reference and reason. The charge of the Buddha being inferior in some aspects and superior in some aspects is along these lines.
Now it may occur to a certain venerable one to think, 'Perhaps it is entirely dependent on conviction that this venerable one is dedicated to renunciation,' but it should not be seen in that way. The monk whose fermentations are ended, having fulfilled [the holy life], does not see in himself anything further to do, or anything further to add to what he has done. It is because of the ending of passion, because of his being free of passion, that he is dedicated to renunciation. It is because of ending of aversion, because of his being free of aversion, that he is dedicated to renunciation. It is because of the ending of delusion, because of his being free of delusion, that he is dedicated to renunciation.
Now it may occur to a certain venerable one to think, 'Perhaps it is because he desires gain, honor, & fame that this venerable one is dedicated to seclusion' ... 'Perhaps it is because he falls back on attachment to precepts & practices as being essential that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness,' but it should not be seen in that way. The monk whose fermentations are ended, having fulfilled [the holy life], does not see in himself anything further to do, or anything further to add to what he has done. It is because of the ending of passion, because of his being free of passion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness. It is because of ending of aversion, because of his being free of aversion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness. It is because of the ending of delusion, because of his being free of delusion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness.
~ Sona Sutta: About Sona, Anguttara Nikaya 6.55, translated from Pali to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
To understand why, let us go through the following exercise with ourselves. It may seem childish to recount to ourselves a simplistic chain of reasoning. But, unfortunately, sometimes, aside from a simple and obvious chain of reasoning, there is no way to remove biases within ourselves which make us paint others with the same biases.
1. Is there anything in the doctrine of the Buddha (or if one prefers, Buddhism) which even remotely hints at bias against women? No.
2. What would be the output if one were to fully master and penetrate the doctrine? Liberation of the mind through no clinging.
When one's awareness is dedicated
to renunciation, seclusion,
non-afflictiveness, the ending of clinging,
the ending of craving, & non-deludedness,
seeing the arising of the sense-media,
the mind is rightly released.
For that monk, rightly released,
his heart at peace,
there's nothing to be done,
nothing to add
to what's done.
As a single mass of rock isn't moved by the wind,
even so all forms, flavors, sounds,
aromas, contacts,
ideas desirable & not,
have no effect on one who is Such.
The mind
-- still totally released --
focuses on
their passing away.
~ Sona Sutta: About Sona, Anguttara Nikaya 6.55, translated from Pali to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, accessible here.
3. What is a bias? It is tilting towards a view stubbornly, against all evidence.
4. For a being that is enlightened, is it possible, by definition, for him or her to be biased about anything? From 2 & 3, one would have to aver: No.
5. However, if such a being says something or acts in a certain manner, then doesn't it follow that that being is acting based on reason rather than bias? Yes.
6. If the Buddha, was a truly englightened being, wouldn't the same hold true for him? Yes.
7. Then, is it appropriate to consider him biased against women? No.
8. Now, if it is pointed out that the Buddha was indeed biased, what does it tell about the Buddha? That he did not actually receive the enlightened state of awareness where there was no trace of clinging left.
9. Is it possible to refute the charge that the Buddha was not enlightened? Yes, very simply by following the steps that he took as documented in the Pali Canon and practiced by accomplished exponents of his doctrine.
10. Is there enough empirical evidence from practitioners that the path that the Buddha highlighted really does lead to a state of mind 'with no clinging'? Yes.
11. Thus, is it safe to presume that the Buddha was indeed devoid of all clinging of any manner whatsoever? Yes, unless the really desperate cynic wishes to put up the charge that the Buddha simply took up someone else's doctrine and bandied as his own. This is the only possibility that can resolve the inconsistency between the Buddha being biased against women and the doctrine he preached having no trace of such bias.
12. But is it possible to even remotely entertain this possiblity? No and for two reasons. The descriptions in the Pali Canon are simply too numerous and too philosophically sophisticated and real for someone to brand as their own. Only someone who has really gone through the entire experience could have discovered a doctrine of this subtle a nature. Secondly, there is enough historical evidence on the authenticity of the Buddha and the impression he left behind on society.
13. On a slightly humourous note: what does it tell about the writer's state of mind? That he is enamoured with the philosophy of the Buddha so much that he clings to the doctrine and the teacher with all his might, against all odds. In a sense, he may be biased bordering on irrevocable prejudice.
14. To pre-empt the question of the exasperated reader: is there a cure for the prejudice of the writer? Yes. It lies in the object of the writer's attachment, which is the Buddha's doctrine. Because the doctrine is such that, if the writer honestly adheres (clings) to it, he will eventually be forced to detach himself from it. That is, it is a kind of doctrine that contains the seed of its own redundancy within itself. So the reader need not fret about the writer losing his objectivity.
To come back to question at hand: it is far more prudent and profitable to focus on what is sure about the Buddha --- the fact that he did exist as a human being, and that as a human being he discovered a doctrine, the utility of which has stood the test of ages, both in the East and the West.
Of course, those not satisfied with the above explanation and elaboration are free to identify a new one. But the theory of the Buddha being misogynist and hence not admitting women into the sangh would require a special ability for creative extrapolation from the literary sources at hand, along with a special felicity for comparative evaluation.
~ ~ ~
In general, there is no known and sure cure to counter-act a list of points taken out of context: a cure which does not give rise to an endless verbal duel which can very easily satisfy the veritable appetite for entertainment of the facebook-&-9pm-talkshow-all-&-sundry. Hence, it pays to identify the sub-conscious point of departure where the article errs: the Buddha was a prince who became a monk. Ram was a prince who became a king. Both in turn were elevated to god-hood by mythology. While in the eyes of mythology both may be gods who should be analysed and assessed in the same manner, it remains a fact that in the eyes of common-sense both require very different standards of evaluation. Ram would need to be evaluated as a king who governed and the Buddha as a monk who taught what he had himself experienced and understood.
If there is an issue with Ram, the Buddha (and Jesus) cannot be called to the court. And like-wise, if there is an issue with the Buddha, Ram cannot be called to depose.To correct the perceptions engendered by mythology, it is mythology that is in need for correction and contextualisation. Applying logical reasoning to mythology comes very close to inverting the very nature of mythology. In the end, it is each man, mythological or historical, to himself or herself. Each one must be evaluated on his or her own terms against the milieu of his time.
If we are scrupulous in our use of mythology we would profit greatly from it. A myth lends itself admirably as a store house for truth where history is encoded for the posterity to decode. Thus, it allows the mind to conduct four operations upon itself: those of storage, those of carriage, those of encoding, those of decoding. However, it would reflexively flinch if the mind were to conduct operations of context-insensitive comparison, generalisation, extrapolation, transference (of a pattern of logic) from one myth to another, and interpretation which goes outside the rules that mythology sets for all the myths under its purview.
And when the myths encode the history of a spiritual being, mythology enjoins an additional rule: to develop an appreciation of spirituality and its implications in a manner befitting the term spirituality. A possibility outside the purview of most men, especially god-men. When spirituality is conjoined with service-to-the-nation and renunciation for renunciation's sake, a proper evaluation is difficult.
In short, to evaluate the Buddha it requires one to dress up for the occasion with reason in one hand; belief in the law of kamma in the second; persistence in the third; and an absolute & heightened alertness of the mind in the fourth: much like the four hands of goddess Saraswati. The path to the right-kind-of-knowledge is indeed a tough one.
Mythology, by its very nature, will always want to make an anthropomorphic god of a monk so that it can relate to the monk in the way it relates to the rest of the society. Unfortunately, a true monk, a true saint, a true sage, a true yogi, by the very definition of their labels, are outside the purview of all labels. Once that realization seeps in the observer, the observer would deflect his attention to other more worldly and pressing issues.
The logical implication of all the above is: it is high time that Ram is best left to be interpreted and understood by the devout of the bhakti tradition and is released from the suffocating arms of the intelligentsia and politicians who wish to serve-the-nation. They would need to find another god to latch onto. Unsavoury rumblings in the back-office of History tell us that they found, or rather invented, one in 2014.
Mythology, wearisome and tired, begrudgingly welcomes a new addition to its ever swelling and never exhausting pantheon that at last count was somewhere in the vicinity of 330 million quite a long time back. After that even mythology stopped counting and guarding its invaluable sheep flock. Mythology, in effect, became unmindful of its own treasures.
Let mythology breath a restful and calm breathe. In times like these (which in some ways are like every other time), it pays to dig deeper into the inner, brighter, firmer and calmer recesses of the doctrines of the great religions which in themselves emerged very much in turbulent times like these. To do that we need to fix our gaze, as the Buddha would urge his disciples to, on what is of lasting benefit and avert it away from what is of lesser and trivial value. To this latter, the misinterpreted, misunderstood and misused ghosts of mythology seem to, prima-facie, fit the bill to a disconcerting degree of perfection.
As is scribbled in the relatively quieter corners of this website: For those whom fortune favoured with a decent education; whom circumstances obliged with a healthy pay-check, health and the blessings of a family life, it pays to not get drawn into, and infatuated & identify with issues of lesser import. [The reader should not try to hide the inevitable ironical grin that would be surely floating across his face at the self-goal that the writer just conceded.]
For, if the self-esteem of a group of individuals in a society is to be measured by the worth the group accords to its heroes, and how this value is pegged on a scale relative to others' heroes, then such self-esteem in the final analysis is worth little. Mythology lost its treasures out of sheer exhaustion. We seem to be losing ours out of ignorant infatuations: a most meaningless tautology if there ever was one.
P.S.: The writer's views would invariably be influenced by his readings of Buddhism, of which the three primary sources are: compilation of suttas and articles at the website Access to Insight; B. R. Ambedkar's Buddha and His Dhamma; and Hinduism and Buddhism: A Historical Sketch (e-book version) by Sir Charles Eliot. The detailed reference to each of the sources can be located in the library section of this website.
|
Initial draft proof-read and corrected with help from Bibhas Mondal. The errors, if any, may be on account of subsequent modifications and are all attributable to the writer.
| |
|