LEARNING TO DYE - An Offering from the Trees

"It's the beginning of hot season. Trees here are shedding their leaves so much that sweeping the paths is a daily necessity, sometimes twice. I came to this [Nay Pyi Daw] monastery for its healthy Vinaya reputation and to hopefully learn from the monks here how to harvest natural materials for making dye. In Thailand over the new year I had learned how to hand sew and am nearly finished with my first upper and lower robes. Amongst the forest tradition there, some donors offer plain white cotton cloth from which monks sew and dye their own robes. Here in Myanmar I have yet to come across the same practice, but some meditating monks here like to darken the bright, chemically dyed robes with natural hand-made dyes.

There are many woods and barks suitable for making dye but I don't like the idea of asking someone for bark skinned from live trees if there's an alternative. It so happens that there is one tree with large fruit pods that make an excellent dye. And fortunately, my timing couldn't be better as the fruits are falling now. An offering from the trees. Harvesting is as simple as identifying the right tree, a type of Ironwood, and gathering the seedless pods that have fallen to the ground amongst the leaves. They're relatively easy to spot as many of them are bright red and stand out amongst the leaves. The pods open and discharge their seeds by turning inside out. And they seem to curl out after they have already fallen as evidenced by one pod that was wrapped tightly around an old discarded robe and by another that was completely wrapped around the base stem of a plant!


The dye making process is quite a time consuming affair, first boiling the fruits overnight to extract the color, removing the fruits, and then further boiling to reduce the dye into a stronger concentrate. Fortunately, as a monk, I have the time. 

I have made a few experiments dying my under garment I wear over my upper body when not in villages or amongst devotees. The resulting color is a medium brown with a reddish hue. I am trying different ways to get the color to hold fast to the cloth. Currently when I sweat (which is a lot this time of year), the color runs. And I chuckle to think about wearing such a robe in the rainy season. Today I experimented with a tip from one of the monks to fix the color with green tea and salt. Not perfect but there was an improvement. Just the border, corners, and fasteners and the robes will be ready to dye. It's a joy to have this gift from the forests which unfortunately are disappearing fast from this world. I share my merits with the forests and all the beings who dwell there, including an occasional monk living in simplicity, following in the footsteps of the Buddha."

- Bhikkhu Obhasa

"The Sasana has some Life in it."

"Worker putting the finishing touches on the repairs to the zedi and the hti that crowns it. Sometimes the zedis actually look more picturesque before they are repaired and repainted. But one thing that's really great is that they get repaired at all. It shows these Buddhist iconic symbols are still important, still part of a living tradition. In that sense, the repairs themselves are a sign that the Sasana still has some life in it. May the Buddha's liberating teachings be available for a long time to come."

--Bhikkhu Obhasa, American monk, Kalaw, Myanmar

An American Monk in Burma: "I Once Ate Organic, was a Vegetarian, followed Ayurvedic Principles...now, 'What Comes Into the Bowl!"

Bhikkhu Obhasa is an American monk living in Myanmar. The above photo shows the view from his secluded kuti from Kalaw, his meditation "cushion" being a straw hand-made Shan seat. He shares his thoughts with his new dietary restrictions:

"One of the biggest sacrifices of ordaining was putting my dietary health options into the hands of a culture with very little understanding of healthy nutrition. I ate organic, was a vegetarian, followed Ayurvedic principles for my body constitutional type, etc. I let go of that to live in a country that does copious pesticide and herbicide spraying, loves dishes swimming in low quality oils, loves sweets and pre-packaged food with artificial ingredients, etc. They don't seem to take care of their own nutritional health nor do they seem to have much nutritional education. There seemed no way they'd be able to take care of mine.

Still being a relatively new monk having just entered my second rains retreat, it has slowly dawned on me just how much stress I had put the mind/body under in this decision to move across the world to a new culture and life as a monk. In that stress, I noticed the mind seeking comfort by trying to control food, which inadvertently often caused more stress. In the mental health field of studies in America the powers-that-be have decreed obsession over such dietary concerns an actual mental disorder. My own observations of mind was seeing the same thing. Agitation and worry over diet and strict adherences to my dietary beliefs and choices only lead to more agitation. Who knows? I wouldn't doubt if that mental stess is actually as bad as or worse for my physical health than the food I'm fussing over. One thing I've done is re-examine some of my food beliefs and found some of them to actually not be true. Another is to loosen up on being a vegetarian, occasionally eating meat. In doing so, I have seen that there was attachment and defilement in both habits. Since then I have let go of some of the control I thought I needed to exert and life has become easier and I grow closer to exemplifying 'paccuppannena yapenti', being content with what is. In this case, what comes into the bowl.

Once the mind lightened up a bit, I actually noticed some of the positives of alms food in Myanmar. In most places devotees still offer fresh home cooked food with a fair variety of rice, veggies, meat dishes, salads, and other proteins. Within what's offered is usually a fairly balanced meal of fresh good. I dare say that what's offered overall is at least as, if not more, healthy than how most people eat back home. It's also pretty easy to be vegetarian here as protein via beans, peanuts, and tofu is commonly offered, and even more is regularly available if one eats eggs. Myanmar grows ample fresh fruit although they seldom offer it as they don't seem to eat too much themselves. It does though from time to time make it into the alms bowl. I occassionally praise the healthiness of certain offerings when appropriate, and often several families catch on to this appreciation and offer fruits, fresh cooked veggies, salads, and other healthier dishes.

Another positive aspect of Myanmar alms food is the sheer abundance given in many places and people seem to be extra generous towards foreign monks. This means I can be selective with my diet, choosing a good balance and allowing me to avoid the unhealthier options. In a pinch, I can always just eat more rice like the locals do which is always plentiful. And I can certainly forego the prepackaged snacks, deep fried treats, and the abundant artificial drinks and sweets. That's just lobha.

Overall, so far I feel pretty healthy. As my attitude has lightened up, the mind has loosened up and let go of some attachments. The wisdom that has arisen seems to find a way to maintain dietary health within what is given. So not only does the food situation seem healthier than it did upon first impression, the mind has become healthier too."

Surviving the Burmese Monsoon

The American monk Bhikkhu Obhasa has submitted the following essay, giving some suggestions for fellow monastics and yogis as to how to best survive Burma's monsoon season in full health. 

MONSOON SEASON SELF CARE
After the extreme heat of hot season, the coming of the rains is often a welcomed relief. Rainy season, however, can come with its own set of challenges. At the onset of rainy season, the body is trying to adjust from hot dry conditions to suddenly cool damp conditions, and it is common to experience a loss of energy, especially during the initial transition period. While dukkha cannot be totally avoided, excessive unhealthiness of the body is considered a difficult condition for practice.

There are two common causes for difficulty during the rains, slower digestion and increased chance of infection.

DIGESTION:
According to the Buddha Dhamma, the continually arising body has four sources of nutriment: kamma, mind, food, and temperature. According to the ancient health practice of Ayurveda, the body uses the element of fire (pali tejo) in the form of heat to digest food and the sudden drastic shift in the external environment from hot and dry to cool and damp inhibits the body's ability to do so. The more one can do to prevent the body from further imbalance by avoiding getting cold and wet, the better ones digestion, energy, and overall health will be during monsoon season. Here are some simple tips to follow:

Eat hot food. For one who depends on alms for food, sometimes almsfood cools down considerably between receiving and eating it. If this is the case, reheating the food, which is allowed by Vinaya, can be helpful. One can use the kitchen at the monastery, acquire a small gas stove, or make a small fire to reheat the food. In case of the latter, it is advisable to gather a stockpile of wood before the onset of the rains.

Eat less. In order to assist the body's digestion, don't eat more than the body can easily digest. The digestive stress on the body and the amount one will have to adjust will vary from person to person. For most the amount will be less than it was during hot season. Examining bowel movements, besides being a helpful asubha practice, is one of the best ways to assess the quality of digestion. If the faeces are more loose and less well formed than normal, this is a sign of incomplete digestion. Help the body out and experiment with eating less.

Eat spicy. Food eaten with hotter spices such as chillies, garlic, onion, and ginger make any meal easier to digest. Some even soak these same ingredients with turmeric root in vinegar for a couple of weeks and add both the spicy vinegar and the pickled ingredients to the meal. Considered as medicine, these ingredients may directly requested.

Avoid raw food. Besides the higher risk of contamination during monsoon (see below), raw food takes more energy to digest and is more cooling, the opposite of what is helpful to a weakened digestive system. If the body is weak and digestion poor, it is advisable to eat only simple, well cooked food that is easy to digest.

Drink hot fluids. Drinking cold fluids around mealtime hinders the digestive strength of the body. Some health systems even go so far as to say not to drink at all around mealtime because the cooling effect of any fluid in the stomach inhibits digestion. During monsoon season it is advisable to keep the body warm and so drinking hot fluids throughout the day is advisable. Again, a gas stove or wood fire will come in handy as well as a thermos or insulated flask to keep it hot. One can add ginger root or ginger powder with a little palm sugar to hot water as well for a little extra heat.

Drink less. During cool damp conditions, the body loses less water through processes like sweating, therefore, less water is needed daily by the body compared to hot season. Stay hydrated as always and also understand that extra water during monsoon is not only unneeded, it only serves to exacerbate the already damp conditions.

Bathe before eating. Deluging the outside of the body with water after eating while trying to digest is also believed to hinder digestion. It doesn't matter whether the water is hot or cold but the effects are even more so when cold. Therefore bathing before meals and then allowing the body to warm up is advisable.

Keep feet warm and dry. When allowed by Vinaya, it is advisable to wear footwear to insulate the feet from the cold wet ground thereby retaining more heat in the body. When barefoot, try to avoid standing for long periods on cold, hard, and/or wet surfaces. Dry and warm the feet as soon as it is possible.

Stay warm and dry. Keep the body and robes dry if at all possible. If the robes get wet, it is advisable to change into dry robes and dry the body as soon as possible. Try to keep the body warmer rather than cooler by wearing extra layers as needed.

INFECTION:
The dampness of monsoon season is a condition for greater risk of infections. As the ground floods with water, the filth that lies on the ground can spread more easily into both our bodies and onto our food sources. There are two main areas of concern, feet and food.

Wear footwear. When Vinaya allows, it is advisable to wear footwear. The water on the ground has a higher likelihood of contamination from things like faeces and dead animals and these contaminants can enter the body via the skin of the feet.

Scrub feet daily. After alms round, scrub feet soon after with soap and a brush. Take extra care to clean any open wounds regularly and thoroughly. Consider regularly applying turmeric in water to any wounds to prevent or stop infection.

Remove callouses. When callouses, especially on the heels, become cracked, they can split to form an open wound, thus providing a higher risk of infection. Prevent this by regularly removing the dead skin with a pumous or other rough stone or by rubbing heels vigorously on wet rough concrete.

Avoid raw vegetables. Many areas flood during rainy season including vegetable crops and the possibility of food contamination is considerably higher. When food is well cooked there us no need for concern as high heat is the most effective way to remove bacteria and parasites, the main causes of intestinal infection. However, raw food presents a significantly greater risk and is best avoided during monsoon.

Turmeric. Turmeric, amongst its many other healthy properties, is known to prevent and fight infection. Turmeric root, powder, and/or pills can be found widely in south and southeast Asia and is highly recommended to take internally regularly. The anti-infection properties are especially helpful during rainy season. As mentioned above, turmeric mixed in water and applied to open wounds externally can prevent or stop infection. If the wound is not healing or becomes more red, itchy, or swollen, it is likely to be infected. Clean the wound thoroughly with soap and water and apply turmeric water or paste immediately. Turmeric can be applied to itchy rashes as well, especially in the most moist areas of the body where bacteria are likely to grow, namely the armpits, belt-line, and crotch areas. For lay people wearing shoes, the feet as well.

Papaya seeds. Papaya seeds are believed to act as an antibiotic effective against parasites, and especially against parasitic worms. Worms start out as microscopic parasites that can enter into the body in a number of ways, one of them being through the feet. They attach themselves to the lining of the digestive tract and papaya seeds are believed to shed such parasites from the lining so they may pass through the body. Whether or not one has worms, a large spoonful of fresh papaya seeds may be taken daily anytime they are available or seek them out if one has any suspicion. Taking a spoonful regularly during monsoon season is recommended.

These are tips I've come across so far. If anyone has more, please do share.

I wish everyone health, happiness, and freedom from all suffering.

Bhikkhu Obhasa

Advice from Htut Khaung Sayadaw

Bhikkhu Obhasa shares the following:

"After lunch my teacher Sayadaw U Tejaniya and I were talking about how often Dhamma and especially Vinaya are argued about. He said his teacher Shwe Oo Min Sayadaw used to share a poem by Htut Khaung Sayadaw with some healthy guidelines for discussing Dhamma: (paraphrased)

On discussing Dhamma:
If someone speaks of Dhamma - Listen
If asked - Speak
If you agree (with anything) - Accept
If you disagree - Silence
-advice shared by my teacher shared by his teacher from a poem of Htut Khaung Sayadaw"

The Thread: Why Is the Four-Fold Sangha Important?

Although separated by continents, three Dhamma friends have been having discussions on practice and theory for some time via email, in order to share their perspectives and learn from one another as they continue on a spiritual path. All are American; two are lay and one is monastic. Between them they have nearly a half-century of practice, and all have been to Burma on several occasions, where they have resided at monasteries for some time. They have offered to share their ongoing Dhamma talks with the greater community, as others may be interested in considering the ideas that are discussed. To see their entire collection of messages, please see here.

Gerald: I took a moment to re-read Ethan's suggestion that Bhikkhu Obhasa and I were painting Burmese Buddhism glowlingly. Actually, I disagree with both examples he gave. The three of us have a history in communication (that is, before we offered the idea of sharing this chat with the Burma-Dhamma audience), and from past discussions it has been suggested that we (Bhikkhu Obhasa and I) present Burmese Buddhism in too favorable a light, and so I wonder if this past consideration was applied to this previous round unduly.

For example, the following line was quoted by me: “a millennium-long experimentation on the part of the Burmese people regarding how one organizes and orients an entire society towards the adherence to the teachings of a single supreme spiritual teacher." When I wrote this, I was very intentionally not suggesting any positive or negative aspects beyond a historical fact that needs to be remembered. The word "experimentation" does not imply that they have successfully resolved or found the answer for how one creates a Dhammic society; only that the attempt (and which is sometimes a very messy attempt!) has been consistent. This was why I intentionally used "experimentation," rather than something like "effective implementation." Similarly, the latter part of the sentence highlights that the Burmese have oriented their society around a single spiritual teacher-- this is also not seen as either positive nor negative, but a statement of fact, as opposed to the spiritual marketplaces found amongst neo-atheists and Buddhist secularists in the modern U.S., or throughout India today as well as in the past. Some people would say that a pluralistic spiritual society is actually better!

Similarly, rereading Bhikkhu Obhasa's post (I'm not sure which specific line Ethan felt was "glowingly"), I find he has written much less on specific cases in Burma and specific cases in the West, and more on what it means to have and not to have a monastic system, in a universal sense. In other words, I don't find him supporting the Burmese system vis-a-vis the West, but rather expressing that lay connection to monastic systems are in general a powerful addition when seeking to practice the Buddha's teachings.

Of course, Bhikkhu Obhasa puts an entirely different spin on this discussion by suggesting we look less at the language Pannobhasa Bhikkhu introduced of an "Epic Battle" between the U.S./West and Burma, and more at what each can learn from the other.

Finally, I'd like to share an observation that Bhikkhu Obhasa and I had in person. We realized that Ethan's posts tend to be objective in nature, mine bring in history, and his concern the personal narrative. Looking at our own backgrounds, this makes sense. Ethan has spent the least time in Burma amongst the three of us, so his view is more concerned with general rules, principles, information, comparisons to other systems, etc., as he tries to understand this intellectually. Being in academia myself, I've read many books on the subject and my view has been informed by "how we got from there to here." Bhikkhu Obhasa has made a radical transformation in his own life, leaving the householder's life entirely behind by ordaining last year, and his journey from lay meditator to Buddhist monk makes all these facts and debates a very personal issue.

I think the beauty of this roundtable format is that these three different puzzle pieces can come together as they do, and it can allow us to look at a single subject from different layers. At the same time, it also presents a danger of miscommunication and misunderstandings, so I think it's helpful to be explicit about how we are approaching the subject, so that we can better understand one another and consider how we frame our writings. While expressing our individual strengths is a gift to the communication, I think it will also be good if we each allow ourselves to delve into the others' spheres as well; for example on my part to remember the power of including my own personal narrative, while also considering objective questions as they may look to an outsider.

To conclude, despite these superficial differences, we are all united by a commitment to the spiritual journey, and a respect that it takes different forms for different people, and we are here to explore those forms in this dialogue.

---
Ethan: To be clear, I was not accusing either of you of any kind of bias. My intention was only to highlight a point I felt had been downplayed in the discussion so far: that negative trends and influences are present in Burmese Buddhism as well. Since we all clearly agree that they are, I won’t spend any more time on it.

In fact, while I enjoyed reading the “Epic Battle” post, I think the question of which system is better is ultimately unanswerable. Yes, certain systems are better at certain things, but in the end the best system is the one that best promotes spiritual progress, and that can vary greatly depending on the person, and can even differ at different times in an individual’s life (or lives). One of the questions that came up after reading “Epic Battle” was whether Western Theravada needs a monastic system, and if so, what should it look like? Since we all agree the answer to the first question is “yes,” what are your thoughts on the second? Since one of you has approaching a decade of experience living in a society with a Theravada monastic system and the the other has been an actual Theravada monk for (one? two?) years, I am very eager for your responses!

---
Bhikkhu Obhasa: As a preliminary to what a monastic system 'should' look like, I'd like to share more specifically why I think a monastic system, or more completely, why the entire four-fold sangha of monks, nuns, and lay men and women together, is important. I feel understanding what the value is will inform what it then might look like.

Valuing monastics is like valuing scientists in that supporting the field of scientists so they can devote full time to discovering things, benefits the people that support them. Monastics are different in the sense that they aren't trying to discover anything new, but they devote full time to replicating the grand experiment of liberation. And when there is success, this is a great inspiration for others.

In the last post it was stated that "in the end the best system is the one that best promotes spiritual progress..." and this was framed in terms of a person or individual. I think this is a bit too loose. In setting up the Vinaya for monks, the purpose wasn't only for the progress of the individual but also for the longevity of the teaching. I think this balance is more easily forgotten in the individualized western culture and that puts longevity at risk. Also I think progress towards the ultimate goal needs to be emphasized rather than just simply 'progress', as secondary benefits can come to be more emphasized and the highest goal marginalized, perhaps eventually even forgotten. These aims balance out what could otherwise become a self serving, short sighted system. In this regard, the communal monastic system seems far better poised to maintain this balance than individuals.

Monks an nuns spend their lives practicing and studying Dhamma. When they share that knowledge, they provide shortcuts to learning for others that don't have or make that time to dedicate to study. And since there are so many monks and nuns studying and practicing, there are bound to be available much variety in languages and ways of explaining that suit different people of different learning styles and different levels of understanding. This great pool anyone can lean on. It's a well anyone can drink from. Not only that, anyone can participate, for a short period or for life. This symbiotic interdependent relationship between monastics and laity is, in my opinion, the most stable, reliable, and sustaining system for spiritual progress.

So why would a monastic system be better for an individual than just learning Dhamma from individual lay teachers? First, that there are lay Dhamma teachers is great so it's not a matter of either/or and certainly lay teachers can be of great benefit. But I would say that lay teachers fare better and only actually exist BECAUSE OF the four-fold sangha, AS A PART OF IT, not seperate. Relying on a single Dhamma teacher that claims complete independence from monastic sangha is first of all, a farce because without the four-fold sangha, there wouldn't be any Dhamma to teach. It would be like a branch of a tree with no trunk or roots.

Second, relying on a single independent teacher in that way would be like relying on one scientist instead of a large pool of collaborating scientists with a deep history of research, shared contribution, renewed inspiration, and fresh successes. There's just no good reason to to cut yourself completely off from the pool (although there may be some good reasons to filter the water). Sharing in a greater sangha has the same benefits. It's alive and it has a momentum that helps carry everyone along. This is actually why the Buddha DIDN'T WANT monks to be independent of the laity. The four-fold sangha is communal and this sense of symbiotic interdependence helps to incline the mind away from individualist ego and more towards ideas like dependent arising. The larger the sense of sangha and the more one participates in it, the less strength of attachment there is to self, teacher, and technique. And the more momentum the sasana has, the more it can help us along.

Some say this mode, this system, is outdated. I however fail to see where these benefits, these values are not as relevant today as they ever were. I have focused mostly on benefits of the laity so far but there are also tremendous benefits for the monastics well beyond simply sustaining life via the four requisites. The mere act of being revered as is so abundant here in Myanmar makes me want to be worthy of that reverence, helps keep me on track and making effort to do my part to maintain the integrity of the monastic sangha. The results of striving then are shared with the laity who are naturally further inspired to support which further inspires me to striving. Around and around it goes in a cycle of mutual benefit.

Thanks for enduring the exegesis. I think in writing the above, I'm more clear on what conditions would need to arise for a naturally sustained four-fold sangha to exist but I'll speak more to that next time perhaps.

The Thread: How Should Western Meditators adapt from "Religious Burma"?

Although separated by continents, three Dhamma friends have been having discussions on practice and theory for some time via email, in order to share their perspectives and learn from one another as they continue on a spiritual path. All are American; two are lay and one is monastic. Between them they have nearly a half-century of practice, and all have been to Burma on several occasions, where they have resided at monasteries for some time. They have offered to share their ongoing Dhamma talks with the greater community, as others may be interested in considering the ideas that are discussed. To see their entire collection of messages, please see here.

Ethan:

I think we all agree that the West needs some kind of outlet so people who want to dedicate their lives to Dhamma are able to do so. U Obhasa hinted at one solution I had in mind when I posed the question. That is, perhaps the monastic system does not even need to be physically located in the West. Is it enough, for example, for a Theravada community in the United States to have an understanding that members who want to dedicate their lives to the teachings can go to Myanmar and ordain? Given how connected the world is now, it is not that difficult for a person to fly halfway across the globe to become a monk or nun. A means for the American community to offer material support for their member’s livelihood could even be set up. Would that kind of system be enough to convince Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu that the Western community is no longer “somewhat of a sham”? I’m not sure how I would feel about such a system. Certainly it would be better than nothing. But it also feels like a bit of a cop-out.

If, however, these dedicated people stay in the West, what kind of framework should there be to support them? Should it be a Vinaya-based system like in Burma and Thailand? Or can it take a completely different shape, while still hold to the core principle of providing a means of full dedication?

But instead of saying more on that topic right now, I’d like to bring up another theme that struck me from both of your responses. I noticed that both of you used fairly critical language to describe the development of Buddhism in the West, yet were more neutral/positive when talking about the system in Myanmar.

For instance, Gerald described Western Buddhism as being filtered by “Orientalism, Eastern exoticism, and transcendentalism/Romanticism,” and U Obhasa mentioned “additives already polluting and diluting the water” in the West. Then when describing Burmese Buddhism, Gerald called it “a millennium-long experimentation on the part of the Burmese people regarding how one organizes and orients an entire society towards the adherence to the teachings of a single supreme spiritual teacher.” U Obhasa used glowing language to describe the Burmese laity (though he did not name them directly) in the post Gerald linked to.

I don’t disagree with these sentiments at all. It’s just that they only seem partially true to me. I feel these descriptions leave out the fact that Buddhism in Burma was also shaped by negative forces. For instance, I’m sure authoritarian state and clerical control was a factor, and I know that due to illiteracy and certain structural factors, the great majority of lay people had little access to the deeper theoretical and practical aspects of Dhamma. Also, present day Buddhism in Myanmar is far from free of pride, greed and tribalism, which taint religions all over the world.

I bring this up not just to be contrarian, but to point out that there are very good reasons why many Western Buddhists are skeptical of adopting the practices of “religious Buddhism.” Certainly this skepticism can be taken too far, but I feel it is an important and valuable characteristic of modern spirituality in the West, and needs to be part of any conversation on how the teachings can best be transplanted and nurtured in the West.


Gerald:

That's correct, it sounds like none of the three of us are saying, "no monastic system is really needed at all in the West." It's important to pause at this point, however, as this is far from a common perception by Dhamma practitioners living outside of Buddhist countries. Some Western Buddhists point out that the Dhamma needs to adapt and adjust to the needs of the place and context in order to thrive, and that this may involve sacrificing the entire monastic system as a viable option. Goenka practitioners say a similar thing, with some variance, as some suggest that Ledi Sayadaw promoted Saya Thet Gyi specifically with an intent to establish a lay Sasana, as he (Ledi) feared that the monastic order could no longer play a primary role in this endeavor (it may be too tangential for me to comment on this particular theory at this time, but suffice it to say now, it is clear that empowering the laity was a major innovation of Ledi; however IMHO it is going a bit too far-- and perhaps imposing on history-- to suggest that his appointment of Saya Thet Gyi represented an acceptance that the Sasana was better managed under lay control). Looked at religiously (that is, in the context of what happens any time a religion moves across time, borders, and peoples), this seems to follow a familiar pattern of traditional beliefs becoming integrated in new cultures in an innovative way, and then this integration/adaption is redefined and justified as not only being a beneficial change, but also one that is more "authentic" to what is determined to be the core teachings.

In this case, one can go back long before Western Buddhists and the teachings of S.N. Goenka to examine the 19th century self-proclaimed Orientalists, who brought a form of "Protestant Buddhism" that sought answers not in the Buddhism of the people, which they determined was lost and impure, but from the ancient scriptures and written text alone.

Forgive me Ethan! You can tell I am a historian at heart and so many of your contemporary questions I get sidetracked to examine this historical progression, which I find so fascinating myself. I agree with your first passage Ethan, which is basically itself agreeing with U Obhasa's "water/canal" argument. This reminds me of a common belief in Myanmar, that if the written words of the Buddha are lost, the teachings may not last more than a century. This is because without a written guide to check against, it becomes impossible to know if one's practice and doctrine is in line or not with the Buddha's words. This contrasts somewhat with the Western concept that the Dhamma is something that is somewhat at the opposite end of academics and critical thought, for many practitioners have arrived at meditation practice after seeing the futility of higher education. It also explains why so many Western meditation teachers have almost no scriptural background or even basic understanding, but solely meditation experience as credentials; while Burmese teachers (of either meditation or scripture) must pass through many rigorous years of training before being allowed to preach the Dhamma in any form. And this relates to what U Obhasa said that without having a system of dedicated followers who are living in line with Buddha's teachings for every moment of their life, it is simply hard to have that wealth of resource in the West to draw upon, and which practitioners and meditation teachers alike can take advantage of. For the years of study that go in to being a qualified monk and teacher are so consuming, that one can concentrate on little else but this practice.

To me this is why both above Western arguments fall flat to me. Both Western Buddhism as well as the proliferation of Goenka's teachings have only been made possible by the millennium-long preservation of the Buddha's teachings that have been carried out almost exclusively by the monastic orders, and continue to so up to this day. As U Obhasa's humble post indicated last week, meditation practitioners are literally "riding on the backs" of so many who have allowed this practice to even exist. Or using his more recent metaphor, these canals are overflowing to such a degree today (which Sayalay Sukha and Monsoon Frog recently noted in this blog were resulting in monstrous waitlists at retreats across meditative traditions) directly because of the vast rivers and oceans that the monastic orders have maintained (and not to neglect the lay societies that have supported these monastic orders!). Those who have traveled to the rivers and oceans, or who have taken a plane across the land to see the geography; understand this. Those who have only seen the rushing canals without an appreciation of the deeper reservoir that fed them, may think that the canals are actually rivers themselves!

Happily, this segues directly into Ethan's closing skeptical assertion that U Obhasa and I may come of a bit glowing of Burmese Buddhism. This is a hard balance to communicate! Because he's right in his way, but it also depends how you are looking at it. For example, U Obhasa and I are two Westerners who come from a background where Burmese monastic society is downgraded as something "religious, traditional, and based on useless rites and rituals." What is more, both of us were strong advocates of these very ideas not so many years ago! So our comments about the value of Burmese Buddhism, and the undervalued role of monastics in Western Buddhist and meditative circles, often comes out stronger in response to this bias. A voice saying, "No, wait! There really is a lot of value here! You Westerners have your own bias, blind spots, and conditioning that is preventing you from properly seeing how it is operating." This forceful response, or rather over-compensation, can sometimes be heard as an unqualified "thumbs up" for the Burmese Sangha and overall Buddhist society, and a overriding criticism of how it is practiced outside. But this is not true, as Ethan points out there are many challenges found in Buddhist practice in Myanmar that need to be talked about openly, and many advantages to be found in the West, as Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu himself points out in his "Epic Battle" post, and which Bhikkhu Bodhi also voices concern about in the link posted in our last thread.

Not to shy away from this point, and fully admitting its truth, however this has been a long response by me already so perhaps I will come back to it in more detail next round.

Bhikkhu Obhasa:

Honestly I cringed at the accusation that I painted Burmese Buddhist laity glowingly. Taking a critical look at one side (especially doing so by exploring how my own personal biases were shaped and being willing to challenge them) does not equate to exalting the other. But if it's needed for clarity before the dialogue can move on, I will make it clear. Burmese Buddhism, both monastic and lay, in my opinion, are far from perfect. I however did not raise this point at the outset because it only seems bolster the fractionalized view that tradition is a broken system that need be ignored, forgotten, or even done away with. I realize none of us hold that view. Even so, if we're going to take a critical look at what's going on in traditional Buddhist culture to help inform the western Dhamma direction, understanding the biases we bring to the table seems primary.

My journey as I see it regarding this issue is to unpack my own belief systems, biases, cultural conditioning, and judgements, to see what I am bringing to the table. I've spent far too much time in my life focusing on and criticizing the imperfections of 'the other' so I am making a more concerted attempt to focus more on my 'stuff'. In doing so as a monastic here in Burma, I am finding value (sometimes begrudgingly) amongst the very things I criticized! And that doesn't mean that what I once saw as imperfect is now seen as perfect, just that with my arrogant idealized values of what I thought Dhamma should be blinded me from seeing the value in the imperfection of 'what is'. And most of the views I held of the superiority of western Dhamma are quickly crumbling.

Is there value in western Dhamma? Yes. Is western Dhamma fitting for its time and place? Yes. Does it supplant traditional Buddhism? No. Does it have something of value to offer the whole of Buddhism? Absolutely. I think the problem here and perhaps with Ven. Pannobhasa's original post as well as divisive discussions across the globe is pitting western and traditional Buddhism against each other. Shouldn't we be asking how they can support each other? Benefit each other? The thing is, while such debates go on, this symbiotic relationship is already happening. Much of the Buddhism in the west is still informed by and kept in check by tradition, and tradition is kept in check by the fresh look (at tradition and modern application) by adherents born outside of tradition. Of course that is only effective to the degree to which we are willing to check our own positions, views, biases, and beliefs. And that won't be perfect either but even some is enough to keep things going. Hopefully we heed the Buddha's many warnings of the dangers of views and attachments to them. Both east and west suffer from this.

I agree that the imperfections of tradition need to be understood and discussed. But how can that be objectively evaluated if we don't recognize our own biases we bring into the evaluation? So starting with internally trying to recognize those biases seems the most prudent and, to me, the most interesting way forward.

The Thread: The Value of Monastic Systems

Although separated by continents, three Dhamma friends have been having discussions on practice and theory for some time via email, in order to share their perspectives and learn from one another as they continue on a spiritual path. All are American; two are lay and one is monastic. Between them they have nearly a half-century of practice, and all have been to Burma on several occasions, where they have resided at monasteries for some time. They have offered to share their ongoing Dhamma talks with the greater community, as others may be interested in considering the ideas that are discussed.

Ethan: We’ve talked a lot about the differences and similarities, advantages and disadvantages of the meditation center-focused system that is common in Western Buddhist circles and of the monastery-focused system in Theravada countries. And I believe we all read U Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu's post titled “Epic Dhamma Battle: Myanmar vs. the USA." In the post he compares the Theravada Buddhist systems of Myanmar and the United States, coming to the conclusion that “Burma cleans America’s clock.” 

I disagree slightly with some of his conclusions in the post, but what I wanted to discuss is an idea that didn’t really catch my eye on the first reading, but that I started to wonder about as time went on. Here are a couple quotes from the post that

“Laypeople were originally intended to practice as much as they were able in their worldly circumstances and to support those really dedicated to practicing the system. So I repeat, the American lack of support for the more advanced levels of the system, which arguably are the most important levels, is a fatal flaw which undermines the whole thing.” (emphasis his)

“[I]f the really dedicated ones, regardless of whether or not they are wearing brown robes, are striving full time for the transcendence of Samsara, then they will need support. I suggest that any Theravada Buddhist organization in America that does not support at least one spiritual renunciant is somewhat of a sham, especially if its members are calling themselves ‘sangha.’ Theravada is a system first and foremost for renunciants.”

At its simplest, the question I’d like to discuss is, “Does Western Buddhism absolutely need a monastic system?” Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu eems to be saying ‘yes,’ though not necessarily as a carbon copy of the Theravada system. In my interpretation, he doesn’t think this is because a monastic system is beneficial for the lay population, or even for the vast majority of monks (not that it is not beneficial for these groups, just that these aren’t the key benefits), but because it provides people who are “really dedicated to practicing the system” a chance to do so.

I can see his reasoning, as clearly if a committed Buddhist has no way to dedicate himself/herself fully to Dhamma there is something seriously wrong. However, I wonder if it is really necessary for Western Buddhist communities to develop monasticism in order to not be considered “somewhat of a sham.”
---

Gerald: What struck me is how Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu described his many years as a monastic in Burma, and then the shock of coming to the US. Of course, implicit in this dynamic is that Burma has had over 900 years of established Buddhist practice, and then during the 1,500 years before that had various touches with the faith. The US, and by extension the West, literally did not know if the Buddha came from either sub-Saharan Africa or ancient India as recently as a couple of centuries ago! (see Charles Allen's In Search of the Buddha). Given that Westerners knew so very little about the most basic origins of the Buddha, it goes without saying that they knew absolutely nothing about either the doctrine or practice. And when they did start to become interested, it was masked through the filters of Orientalism, Eastern exoticism, and transcendentalism/Romaticism, which more than skewed proper understanding (and later gave way to the later appropriations of Alan Watts, Allen Ginsberg,Jack Kornfield, etc.)

What's so interesting to me then is that Western Buddhism (or as some like to refer to it, Non-Religious/Non-Secular Mind-and-Matter Observation of Pure Awareness and Mindfulness or some such variation) and Burmese Buddhism seem to be speaking the same language, however there are subtle gaps between how one is talking and the other. These subtle gaps ultimately cause immense confusion in the form of cultural bumps for those few who travel from one community to the other, expecting that the same understanding of the same practice is being followed, and becoming confused and disoriented by the gaps that continue to manifest. But that such a gap exists should not be confusing: on one hand we have a millennium-long experimentation on the part of the Burmese people regarding how one organizes and orients an entire society towards the adherence to the teachings of a single supreme spiritual teacher; while on the other hand you have a community in which the practice is barely a generation old, and is only practiced by a very small subset of the population who are still awkwardly trying to find how it fits within their cultural norms and established lives. In other words, the "minor cultural bumps and subtle gaps" are neither minor nor subtle, but blasting Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu directly in his face!

And to me, this represents the very difference of a society that has had centuries upon centuries to not only understand and investigate these teachings, but also to organize an entire society upon the establishment of the four-fold Sangha (the monk, nuns, lay men, and lay women), all of them fully engaged in carrying out their respective roles so the Sasana may continue (as Bhikkhu Obhasa himself so eloquently pointed out here). And the other society has experimented in their own way, from the innovation of the non-monastic meditation center (itself only about a half century old) to the presentation as Buddhism as being a kind of efficiency practice for the modern world. But the innovation of the West is still young, and has not yet turned its attempt on the monastic order, and so when a dedicated monastic such as Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu steps into the Western world of Buddhist practice, this is a glaring and shocking omission.

I realize I have somewhat sidestepped Ethan's question of "Does Western Buddhism absolutely need a monastic system?" I'm looking more at historical development and progression objectively, at how things developed and why it makes sense for them to develop in that way, rather than thinking about it as what they "absolutely" need and why. I may tackle this query next round. For now suffice it to say, that (a) it makes sense that most all the initial Buddhist teachers to the West innovated to bring the teachings without an emphasis on the monastic system as a primary concern; as well as (b), that we also have to be honest and not sidestep the fact that a huge component is lost by removing the central feature of both the Buddha's life and teachings and trying to develop further without ever looking to add this piece. On that last note of (b), I will add that while I am a lay practitioner, I have benefited beyond what words can explain by living within a monastic society such as Burma. In other words, a monastic system benefits not only the monastics, but as Bhikkhu Obhasa's post indicated, everyone involved in every facet of it.
---

U Obhasa: It's a great question. My current answer is yes, the west needs the monastic system whether they know it or not, whether they understand it's value or not. And this answer I realize changes the meaning of the question in that I don't necessarily think the monastic structure needs to even BE in the west. It just needs to exist and the west would do well to understand it's value and stay connected. Along with the Buddha and Dhamma, the Sangha completes the core strength of the continued existence of these teachings. Monastic sangha in the west will only ever develop as much as supporting conditions allow. Currently those conditions are quite lacking and it's hard to tell whether those conditions will develop in the future. It could be that many will eventually understand the monastic sangha's necessity, even in it's inherent imperfection. But that need not be the case as the Dhamma is quite adaptive to varying conditions. Yet, whether the Buddhists in the west realize it or not, the Dhamma we have today exists ONLY because of the monastic system which includes all monks and nuns and all who have supported them both in the past centuries and today. Some say though that the monastic system is archaic and unsuitable to modern times. I feel that this view is rather shortsighted.

It's as if there's a big lake of water well cared for over many centuries. This lake, if not cared for in a certain way, would otherwise dry up. Others come from afar to drink and are even given permission to dig canals so the water may benefit those in distant arid places. But the people from afar don't channel it into another lake and take care of it in the same way as those they received it from. They create canals and distribution of the water based on the situations present in their own lands. The canals and the distribution system may be brilliant and a great fit for those lands but it would be ludicrous to think that it would survive long without the source being well taken care of, no matter how good the new system is. And this would be true whether it is understood or not. This is in response to those that not only emphasize certain aspects of the Dhamma at the exclusion of others but actually wish to abolish those other aspects completely from the face of the earth. These are some of the neo-athiest and secular mindfulness practitioners I've come across.

Another angle of this issue is brought up by Bhikkhu Bodhi. How far can the Dhamma be stretched to fit the current non-traditional culture? Using the water metaphor, one may emphasize secondary aspects of the benefits of water in order to appeal to the local culture like that one can swim in the water and swimming is both fun and good excercise. To a degree, nothing wrong in that because the Dhamma has a certain amount of adaptability and it does have such secondary benefits. But when those secondary aspects start to eclipse the primary benefit, when swimming becomes more important than drinking water and growing food, that's a detrimental perspective. It misses the point. When the emphasis in Dhamma is no longer liberation but instead secondary life benefits, we will have lost the core. A culture of primarily lay teachers is more likely to drift that way than one whose Dhamma is still influenced by a strong monastic tradition. The main emphasis of liberation seems far better anchored by those 100% committed to it than those who have other obligations. Do the monastics actually need to be within the physical culture? Maybe, but perhaps not. As long as the culture doesn't cut itself from the source.

Can another culture borrow from the traditional source and create a new way of sustaining it? Perhaps, but I am doubtful. It's too early to tell but even at these early stages it already seems too scattered and unstable. It could go on perhaps hundreds of years but the tradition has been proven to last for thousands. With all the Kool-Aid and other additives already polluting and diluting the water, so far the 'new' ways don't seem like they'd survive apart from the tradition let alone outlast it...

But is the Sasana Really Like an Organism...?

In his first blog post for "Burma Dhamma," American monk Bhikkhu Obhasa shared his reflections transitioning from having practiced in the Sayagyi U Goenka tradition to becoming a Buddhist monastic in rural Burma, here. His honest reflection in describing his painful learning bumps have, in the short time since its posting, made it one of the most popular blog posts yet. 

So popular, in fact, that the good folks at Dhamma Wheel have begun their own discussion of the blog post here. Burma-Dhamma readers interested to join the discussion may contribute their own thoughts to this thread.

"It is as if the Sasana is a Giant Organism..."

“I've come to recognize a certain type of arrogant view in myself, previously unseen, that the individual striving is the only thing that truly counts. I came by this notion honestly as it's a natural outcome resulting from having been raised in a culture that heralds the individual above all else. 

I now realize the absurdity of this notion. We are actually anyway totally interdependent. In regards to Dhamma, it is amazing how every piece, that is, all the paramis, and anyone that participates at any level in contributing any of them, helps to sustain the Sasana for future generations. It is as if collectively the Sasana is a giant organism that is bigger than all of us individually, more than the sum of its parts, and both impersonal and interpersonal at the same time. It is more clear now how the strength of this greater phenomenon, with and because of, all of its pieces has had the richness, adaptability, strength and momentum to survive generation after generation. Without that whole, it is unlikely that this practice I so deeply value would even still exist. 

And even though some do not engage the teachings at the level of meditation, the ones that do are carried on their backs and always have been. For those I once held in mild contempt for not meditating, I now am developing an ever-deepening sense of gratitude. And not only for those in the present, but also the many nameless beings that have done so in the past, as well as of course gratitude for the genius of the system and its originator. 

This unfolding realization has helped to reduce the ego and let go of a very limiting and limited view. Even the simplest acts of veneration are not for me but for the Sasana. Every bowing of the head, every flower placed on a shrine, every swipe of a broom at a monastery, every grain of rice that lands in my bowl, it is sustaining the Sasana. I see that I and others are simply performing roles as suit our current nature, none more important than another, that collectively make up the Sasana. 

A rare phenomenon that for over 2,500 years has held open the door and shown the path to liberation.” 

--Bhikkhu Obhasa, American monk

Ordination of Zach Hessler

Zach Hessler has become Bhikkhu Obhasa at Shwe Oo Min Monastery, under the Preceptor Sayadaw U Tejaniya. He had ordained for three months last year and so liked the experienced that he is now making an open-ended commitment to living the life of a bhikkhu in robes. Ma Thiri attended the ordination and kindly shares these inspiring photos. May Bhikkhu Obhasa attain the highest stages of insight! We say Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!