Warning: The magic method OCDI\OneClickDemoImport::__wakeup() must have public visibility in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php on line 121 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-content/themes/book-club/importer/inc/OneClickDemoImport.php:121) in /customers/a/8/2/robertmellis.net/httpd.www/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1831 {"id":934,"date":"2020-06-01T10:20:31","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T09:20:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/?page_id=934"},"modified":"2020-06-01T10:20:32","modified_gmt":"2020-06-01T09:20:32","slug":"the-thought-of-sangharakshita-sample","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/the-thought-of-sangharakshita-sample\/","title":{"rendered":"The Thought of Sangharakshita: Sample"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The following extract consists in the Introduction to The Thought of Sangharakshita: A Critical Assessment<\/em>, reproduced by permission of the publisher, Equinox<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.  \nIntroduction<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

a.    Meeting\nSangharakshita<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a pleasant but\nchilly winter\u2019s day as I cycle through the lanes of Herefordshire, England, and\nleave my bike by the pond at the entrance to Adhisthana, the Buddhist centre\nwhere Sangharakshita lives. I pass through the courtyard of this former school,\nto the old house where he has his apartment, and am asked to wait a few minutes\nin the office next to it, until he is ready to see me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I wait, I\nreflect on the unlikeliness of the whole scenario: both that I now wish to see\nSangharakshita, and that he now wishes to see me. After all, I resigned from\nthe Buddhist Order that he founded ten years ago. Since then I\u2019ve been\ndeveloping a different approach \u2013 Middle Way Philosophy \u2013 and have started a\nsociety quite distinct from that Order and from the Buddhist tradition. Anyone\nbreaking free of a religious group that used to play such a large role in their\nlives will tend to find themselves emphasising the distance at first, in order\nto establish their independence. They then need to engage themselves in\nsomething else that is positive, which I have done, in order not to spend the\nrest of their lives reacting counter-dependently to the old organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is important to\nmove on; but it\u2019s also important, as I\u2019ve since discovered, to then look back\nand to engage with one\u2019s roots. Sangharakshita\u2019s influence shaped the Western\n(now Triratna) Buddhist Order and Community, and that Order shaped my thinking in\nvarious important ways all through my twenties and thirties. Meditation\npractice, solitary reflection, deeper friendship, aesthetic appreciation, moral\nadequacy, transformative social structures, spiritual or integrative\ndevelopment itself \u2013 all of these are practical expectations that I learnt in\nlarge measure from the Order. I could have learnt about them in theory\nelsewhere, but the emphasis in the Order was on the frontline of practice. The\nvery idea of an ongoing practice that permeates one\u2019s life, that engages ideals\nfully with actual experience, does not often get the kind of emphasis elsewhere\nthat it does there. All of these things became important to me through that\nOrder and its work, with Sangharakshita as its instigator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guide and\ninspiration of my life has since become a more general principle, the Middle\nWay, in which one recognises what is positive in all areas of one\u2019s experience,\nwhilst avoiding turning them into absolute beliefs. So, after writing a\ndetailed account of Middle Way Philosophy itself, it has begun to seem that the\nnext priority for me is a detailed sorting process of the traditions and\nperspectives that have meant most to me. In this spirit, I\u2019ve written recent\nbooks about Christianity, about Jung, and about the Buddha, all distinguishing\nwhat I find genuinely helpful in those sources from the things that get in the\nway. However, as a young man, I doubt if I would have become particularly\ninterested in the Buddha if it wasn\u2019t for the effects of Sangharakshita\u2019s\ninterpretation of Buddhism. I would thus never have even become aware of the\nMiddle Way as a possible approach. So I began to think about the possibility of\nwriting a similar \u2018sorting\u2019 book about Sangharakshita.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first, I did not\nexpect meeting Sangharakshita himself to form part of the project. I expected\nit to consist mainly of research and thinking. After all, he was ninety-two,\nand had been in variable health. Nor had I had any personal contact with him\nfor many years, even though by coincidence he now lived only a few miles from\nme. However, when I sent an email to Adhisthana asking if they\u2019d be interested\nin assisting me with the project, the email was passed on to Sangharakshita\nhimself. To my surprise, he immediately asked to see me. His health had been stably\ngood of late. Several discussions followed, of which this was the third.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I\u2019m shown into\nthe room to see Sangharakshita, he is sitting in a high-backed armchair with a\nsomewhat frail but alert gravity. He is positively interested in being\nchallenged, in a way that one would expect of few leaders, and indeed of few\nninety-two year olds. He makes a point of explaining, this time, what he gets\nfrom seeing me. He says that he sees few people outside the circle of his\nimmediate disciples these days, and still fewer people who challenge him. I am\nalso put in mind of another suggestion made by an older friend of mine: that at\nthis age, people like to take stock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this occasion,\nas on previous ones, we talk of a range of topics: doctrine versus methodology,\nthe nature of objectivity, evolution, the nature of spiritual commitment. I try\nto strike a balance between listening respectfully, and putting in the\noccasional question or opinion that pushes the boundaries. Sometimes he gets\ndiverted into anecdote, or his memory fails. However, when offered a critical\nperspective, he always pauses and weighs it up with awareness rather than reacting\ntoo quickly, and sometimes clarifies or adjusts his position. He is also aware\nof his limitations, for example, in knowledge of recent psychology and\nneuroscience. But there are also limits to what I could expect in terms of\ncritical discussion. He tends not to follow through the implications of any\nconcessions that he makes, but rather then to head back to more familiar\nterritory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ambience of\nthat discussion \u2013 of respectful listening, of testing questions, of a degree of\nadmiration tempered by a recognition of limitations \u2013 is the one that I would\nlike to shape this book. I am glad that it has been possible for it to be\ninformed by personal contact, because I believe that this will add, not\ndetract, from its objectivity. Objectivity, in my view, is not an absolute, but\na quality one can cultivate. It involves, more than anything, the capacity to\nconsider alternatives to one\u2019s current beliefs. At a basic level it does\nrequire the capacity for distancing, so as to avoid being overwhelmed by the apparent\n\u201ctruths\u201d one is encountering at present. However, that distancing process can\nalso become too much of an end in itself, and require a return to the personal.\nAs anyone who has ever written a comment online will know, it is too easy to\ncomment unreflectively and on the basis of limited assumptions about someone\nelse from the distance of a wholly abstracted perspective. To meet them in\nperson, in their complexity, is often the best antidote to that tendency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before I had\ncompleted my planned series of discussions with Sangharakshita in relation to\nthis book, however, I learned of his death on 30th<\/sup> October 2018.\nThis death, at the age of 93, was long expected, but sudden when it occurred.\nHe always seemed to be very straightforward and open about his death, and had\napparently discouraged his disciples from building an over-grand stupa to mark\nhis grave. It is because of the timing of his death that I was unable to ask\nhim in detail about much of the material in the final \u2018controversies\u2019 section\nof this book. It is also due to this particular set of circumstances that he is\nusually referred to in the present rather than the past tense in this book: on\nreflection I have decided not to revise this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having set out this\npositive context, though, I should also acknowledge previous more negative\nviews of Sangharakshita. I had met him on previous occasions (that he does not\nremember), perhaps fourteen or fifteen years earlier. Two memories are\ndominant. One is joining a meal at the community known as Madhyamaloka in\nBirmingham, where he used to live, and finding him totally dominant at the\ndinner-table conversation. My own contributions, which I think involved\nbeginning to question the basis of one of his assertions, were not taken up nor\ngiven any space. Another memory is of going for a walk with him round the local\npark, and listening to his very conservative \u2013 and I thought, ill-informed \u2013\nviews on language, but not at that time having the courage to fully challenge\nhim face-to-face. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both of these\noccasions illustrate a certain unfortunate dynamic of spiritual leadership: one\nthat can seemingly occur regardless of the leader\u2019s best intentions to avoid\nthe crude features of the repressive cult. A person who gains an important\nposition because others recognise their profound objectivity \u2013 an objectivity\nthat is partly dependent on their openness to other ideas \u2013 can end up\ndiscouraging that objectivity in their disciples. This happens because of a\nself-reinforcing tendency for the leader to always be listened to first,\nbecause he has the most insights on most topics, which then prevent others from\ndeveloping, because they lack either the confidence or the social opportunity\nto challenge him. It is perhaps this dynamic that led to Stephen Batchelor\u2019s past\nimpression of Sangharakshita and his movement: \u201cThey operate as a self-enclosed\nsystem and their writings have the predictability of those who believe they\nhave all the answers. They are structured in a rigid hierarchy and do not seem\nto question the teachings of their leader.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Triratna Buddhist Community is a New Religious Movement,\nbut not a cult in the most widely used pejorative sense of the term[2]<\/a>,\nand Sangharakshita is not an authoritarian leader. However, that has not\nprevented others from relating to him as one, whether positively or negatively.\nTheir tendency to do so has then had complex and far-reaching effects. Whether\nSangharakshita could possibly have done more to discourage this tendency is one\nof the more important questions that I want to examine in this book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This dynamic has contributed a good deal to the other\ncontroversies that have surrounded Sangharakshita: the ones that I will\nconsider in the final section of my book. Perhaps the rawest of these concern\nSangharakshita\u2019s homosexual relationships with young men: relationships that\nhis critics have regarded as abusive because they have involved the abuse of a\npower imbalance. Sangharakshita\u2019s expressed views about the relative spiritual\nstatus of men and women, and about marriage and family life have also caused\nsubstantial controversy. My goal in this book is not to examine the specifics\nof any particular allegation, for example of Sangharakshita\u2019s sexual\nmisconduct, but rather to create a wider context in which these cases might be\nfairly judged. I want, as best I can, to try to assess the underlying motives\nand assumptions that created these controversies. Are they in any sense\ninseparable from a wider set of attitudes that are helpful? Do they just\ninvolve a failure to apply his wider values consistently? Or are they\nindicative of deeper problems in Sangharakshita\u2019s teachings as a whole?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be able to fully contextualise these controversies, we\nwill need to start by exploring Sangharakshita\u2019s most universal and widely\nhelpful ideas. These have arisen from a highly creative set of circumstances:\nthose of a Buddhist monk, trained for twenty years in India, widely read in\ntraditional Buddhist sources and embedded in the practices of a variety of\nBuddhist schools and teachers, returning to England and founding a new Western\nBuddhist movement. Creativity arises from synthesis: in this case the bringing\ntogether of East and West. But we should add to the factors contributing to\nthat creativity Sangharakshita\u2019s own breadth of character: a poet as well as a\nthinker, an organiser as well as a practitioner, a Romantic as well as a\npragmatist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not surprising, then, that we should find\nSangharakshita looking for elements of Western culture that he could\nincorporate into a Buddhist vision, whether that means William Blake or Saint\nJerome. Nor should it be a surprise that his most pragmatic teachings\nincorporate elements shared with psychology (the concept of integration),\ndemocracy (the concept of individuality) and science (the concept of\nprovisionality). Sangharakshita is also well known for not accepting any of\nthese aspects of Western culture indiscriminately. In his critical selection\nfrom Western culture lies a good deal of the interest and innovation of his\napproach. But it should also not be forgotten that at every stage these\ninnovations were applied in the context of practice: whether that of\nmeditation, the arts, friendship, or new forms of social organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Triratna view of the world emphasises personal\ncommitment to practice, but the strength of the community required to support\nthat practice also creates a barrier that prevents their discoveries being\nknown more widely. However, you do not need to sign up to a Triratna view of\nthe world to learn from Triratna and from the views that have informed it. It\nis time that Sangharakshita\u2019s thinking, both in its successes and its sometimes\ncreative failures, played more of a part in a wider discourse amongst all those\nwho are concerned with human development.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

b.   \nA Sketch of Sangharakshita\u2019s Life and Work<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This book is not a biography, but nevertheless, some\nunderstanding of Sangharakshita\u2019s life will be helpful for the full\nunderstanding of the discussion that follows. Full details of much of his life,\nat least prior to his foundation of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order\nin 1968, can be found in the four substantial volumes of his memoirs[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sangharakshita was born as Dennis Lingwood, to what are often\ndescribed as working-class parents in Tooting, South London, in 1925. As a\nchild, he was diagnosed with a heart condition that meant that he spent two\nyears in bed from the age of eight. This episode seems to have strongly set the\ntone of Sangharakshita\u2019s distinctive individuality and autodidacticism. He read\nvoraciously, including the whole of a children\u2019s encyclopedia and many classic\nworks of literature. After two years, the diagnosis of a heart condition was\noverturned, and he had to learn to walk again. After getting over-excited and\nrunning on an excursion, he then collapsed and had go back to bed and start the\nwhole process all over again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The way that he must have learnt determination in the face\nof setbacks, and of a gradualist attitude to progress, becomes evident from\nthese early episodes. His remarkable ability to remain mindful may well have\nbeen influenced by the formative experience of having to relearn how to walk\ntwice as an older child. However, these experiences also seem to have left a\nnegative mark on his relationship with his body, making him cerebral and\nuninterested in bodily cultivation. According to one friend, he made some\nefforts later to compensate for this, for example through yoga or Tai Chi, but\nthese could not entirely overcome the effects of such childhood conditioning.\nSome of his critics also say they have been put off by his idiosyncratic body\nlanguage and speech mannerisms, which may have been influenced by these early\nexperiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After leaving school at fourteen, Dennis worked for a coal\nmerchant and the London county council. His lack of formal education did not\nprevent him from continuing to read prodigiously, from Kant\u2019s Critique of Pure Reason <\/em>to the\ntheosophical writings of Madame Blavatsky. He also developed a lifelong love of\nthe arts, which always tended towards the refined, classical and romantic. At\nthe age of sixteen he read the Diamond\nSutra<\/em>, which is one of the best-known Mahayana Buddhist scriptures, full of\nsoaring paradox. He had a powerful experience in response to it, of which he\nhas written that he then knew that he was a Buddhist. When I asked him\nface-to-face what that meant to him at that time, he said that he accepted what\nBuddhism stood for, even though he had little understanding of the text at that\ntime. He was reluctant to accept labels like \u2018intuitive\u2019 or \u2018spiritual\u2019 for the\nexperience because he regarded them as inadequate, but it is clear that this\nwas amongst the first of many powerful experiences of that kind that inspired\nhim. From that point he started to attend the Buddhist Society in London.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On reaching the age of eighteen, he was conscripted into the\narmy and joined a signals corps. Even under military discipline, his inner life\ncontinued, and he composed \u2018Persian-style quatrains\u2019 in his head whilst\nmarching on the parade ground. In 1944 he was sent to India. Though delighted\nto be posted to the land of the Buddha, Sangharakshita at first encountered\nlittle Buddhism, but instead met Hindu teachers and practised Hindu meditation\nwhenever his duties allowed. It was only when he was re-posted to Singapore\nthat he met Buddhist monks and took up specifically Buddhist practices. After\nthe end of the war, he was informed that his unit was to be demobilised in\nEngland, but he applied for leave in India and then failed to return,\ntechnically a deserter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In India he worked temporarily for three different Hindu\nreligious organisations, but he became disillusioned with their organisational\npolitics and continued allegiance to caste rules. Accompanied by a friend and\ntaking the name Dharmapriya, he thus decided to go forth, renouncing all\npossessions and social status. This decision tells us much about\nSangharakshita\u2019s commitment to the intuitive understanding of the spiritual\nlife he had maintained since reading the Diamond Sutra, as well as his courage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For two years he then lived the life of an Indian sadhu<\/em>, wandering around southern India\nand often staying at ashrams. At one of these he had another strong spiritual\nexperience: a vision of the Buddha Amitabha. Despite his immersion in a Hindu\ncontext, his commitment to Buddhism increased, and he sought ordination as a\nBuddhist monk, which he completed in Sarnath (the place of the Buddha\u2019s first\nsermon) in 1950. It is from his minor Buddhist ordination in 1949 that he took\nthe name Sangharakshita. After a visit to Nepal, Sangharakshita then studied\nthe Pali language and scriptures for seven months with the Indian Buddhist\nmonk, Ven. Jagdish Kashyap. Kashyap then asked him to stay in Kalimpong, in the\nHimalayas, and work \u2018for the good of Buddhism\u2019, which he did for fourteen\nyears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During his period in Kalimpong, Sangharakshita increasingly\ndeveloped the interpretation of Buddhism that would be put to the test when he\nlater returned to the UK. Despite his Theravada ordination, he had contact with\na variety of different Mahayana Buddhist teachers \u2013 many of them lamas newly\nfled from Tibet. He was thus able to evaluate by comparison, not only between\ncultures, but between schools of Buddhism. He produced a flow of writing,\nincluding \u2018A Survey of Buddhism\u2019[4]<\/a>,\nwhich many followers consider his magnum\nopus<\/em>. He engaged with a range of Buddhist scholars and practitioners,\npartly by editing a magazine, Stepping\nStones<\/em>. He also began to show a talent for organisation, developing the\nYMBA (Young Men\u2019s Buddhist Association) to help provide a positive focus for\nyoung people in Kalimpong, and assisting the King of Sikkim in the reform of\nSikkimese monasteries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During this period, however, Sangharakshita was not confined\nto Kalimpong, but regularly travelled in the rest of India. At this time he met\nthe great Indian Dalit (\u2018Untouchable\u2019) leader, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, who had\nbecome the first Law Minister of India and had headed the commission that\ndrafted the Indian Constitution. After long deliberation, Ambedkar had decided\nthat, due to the oppression of the Dalits within Hinduism, he would become a\nBuddhist. Just six weeks before his death, he led a mass conversion ceremony of\nhis Dalit followers. By coincidence, Sangharakshita arrived in Nagpur, where\nthe conversion ceremonies had taken place, just after Ambedkar\u2019s death was announced,\nand was able to console and aid the huge numbers of Dalits who had followed\nAmbedkar into Buddhism on the basis of personal faith in him, but who knew\nalmost nothing about it. Sangharakshita continued to work in this community for\nseveral months a year during the remainder of his time in India, and Indian\nDalit Buddhists have since become a significant part of the Triratna Buddhist\nmovement. This involvement has equipped Sangharakshita with a strong sense of\nthe social importance of Buddhism, and the ways that it can potentially be a\ntool of liberation for desperately poor and uneducated people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sangharakshita returned to the UK in 1964 at the invitation\nof the English Sangha Trust (the ruling body of Theravada monks in England), to\nhelp resolve disputes with the Buddhist Society. However, Sangharakshita\u2019s\nidiosyncratic approach to Buddhism itself soon caused new controversy.\nSangharakshita quickly gained popularity amongst ordinary people in the UK who\nwere interested in Buddhism, for the same reasons that he was unpopular with\nthe Buddhist establishment. He thought that spiritual life in general took\npriority over monastic tradition, and offered ideas that crossed sectarian\nboundaries. He initially came to England on a temporary basis, then decided to\nstay permanently, and returned to India to wind up his affairs. Whilst in\nIndia, however, he was informed by the English Sangha Trust that he would not\nbe invited back. In another of the courageous decisions that punctuate his life\nhistory, Sangharakshita decided to go back anyway and to start his own\nmovement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus in 1967, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order\n(FWBO) was founded[5]<\/a>.\nThis was followed the following year by the first ordinations into the Western\nBuddhist Order. From the beginning, then, the idea of adapting Buddhism\nappropriately to Western conditions was embodied in the name of the new\norganisation. Sangharakshita encountered a very different society in the UK of\nthe 1960\u2019s to either the one he had left behind in the 1940\u2019s or the one he had\nleft in India. Norms of traditional society were being questioned at an\nunprecedented rate as the post-war \u2018baby-boomer\u2019 generation reached adulthood.\nSexual, cultural and political freedom were all central to this.\nExperimentation and encounter with new cultures and religions provided an\natmosphere in which many young people wanted to try out Buddhism. It was, in\nmany ways, a uniquely receptive time, at least amongst the young urban elites\nof the West, and Sangharakshita was fortunate in being able to harness that\nzeitgeist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some key aspects of Sangharakshita\u2019s temperament emerged in\nthis situation. On the one hand, it did not suit him at all, because his\ntendencies were quite conservative. Traditional society, classical art,\nconservative politics, and metaphysical philosophy continued to attract him\neven in the midst of the experimental movement that he himself was initiating.\nOn the other hand, however, there was also a pragmatic flexibility in\nSangharakshita\u2019s character, and a great willingness to adopt what Buddhists\nrefer to as \u2018skilful means\u2019. One story of this time is that, despite a\nlifetime\u2019s abstention from alcohol, he would sit in the corner of a pub and\nspin out a drink in order to listen to the conversation and get the measure of the\nsociety in which he found himself. According to other stories, he was also\nwilling to offer people a few drinks if he thought that would help them loosen\nup a bit, even though this was a strictly temporary expedient and not at all\npart of the culture of the FWBO. He grew his hair long, and tried LSD. His\nsexual experimentation from this time onwards, whilst he continued to wear the\norange robe of the celibate monk, is also a particularly controversial aspect\nof his practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apparent contradictions need to be understood by\nreturning to Sangharakshita\u2019s grounding in traditional Buddhism. This provided\nhim with a confidence in the spiritual life that he felt able to adapt to an\nentirely different situation. The ways in which his experience crossed East and\nWest and crossed different Buddhist schools provided him with a model of\nBuddhism which was independent of specific cultural contexts to an extent that\nwas unusual amongst Buddhist teachers. However, that independence never seems\nto have prevented him from remaining stubbornly attached to the features of\nBuddhism that he considered to be core and non-negotiable (the nature of those\nwill be discussed later in this book). For traditional rule-followers whose\nexperience is narrower and temperament less pragmatic, Sangharakshita\u2019s conduct\nin the early years of the new movement will seem to be a descent into rootless\nrelativism; but for him, on the contrary, it was in harmony with what he\nconsidered to be the flexible universal core of Buddhism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new movement began with a basement in central London,\nbut by the early 1970\u2019s was already beginning to expand to other places,\nincluding beyond the UK. At first, Sangharakshita ran everything, but as his\nfollowers developed he increasingly passed on responsibilities to them. At the\ntime of writing, fifty years later, the Triratna Buddhist Community (as it is\nnow called) has 65 city centres around the world, 15 retreat centres, and\naround 1900 Order Members[6]<\/a>.\nAs early as 1973, he left the running of the movement to others whilst taking\nan extended retreat, in order to enable them to take responsibility in a space\nfree of his influence. During the 1990\u2019s he gradually handed on his\nresponsibilities for running the Order and movement, leaving him free to\nconcentrate on practice, literary work, and supporting others at a personal\nlevel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A large number of books represent the records of\nSangharakshita\u2019s teachings during the period since the foundation of the\nmovement. Many of these were delivered in oral form in the context of talks and\nseminars, and then transcribed and edited by others. The oral origins of this\nmaterial give it a very different flavour to the books he directly composed,\nsuch as \u2018A Survey of Buddhism\u2019. It covers a very wide range of topics, but is\nmost commonly based on the interpretation of a Buddhist text from any of the\nperiods or schools of Buddhism. Sangharakshita\u2019s goal always seems to have been\nto bring out the practical and inspirational relevance of these texts for\nWestern practitioners today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sangharakshita\u2019s connections with India, and particularly\nwith the Dalit communities led by Ambedkar, did not end with his move back to\nthe UK. In 1977, with his encouragement, some Western Order members began to\nwork in India, creating a new wing of the movement there. This was initially\nknown as Trailokya Bauddh Mahasangha, but the change of name to Triratna was\nlargely motivated by a wish to have a common name for both Indian and Western\nwings of the movement. The movement in India was challenged by quite different\nconditions from those in the West. Ambedkar\u2019s Dalit followers had converted to\nBuddhism with little understanding of the implications, and they continued to\nbe constrained by poverty and lack of education and opportunity. The FWBO was\nable to initiate a charity (the Karuna Trust) to help meet some of these\npeople\u2019s social and material needs, as well as help develop a form of Buddhism\nappropriate for them. From the point of view of Western Buddhists in the new\nmovement, this has provided a strong social element to its work that might\notherwise be missing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sangharakshita was a complex and multi-faceted character.\nThis complexity is something he has discussed himself, in identifying two\nsub-personalities: \u2018Sangharakshita 1\u2019 and \u2018Sangharakshita 2\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sangharakshita 1 wanted to enjoy the beauty of nature, to read and\nwrite poetry, to listen to music, to look at paintings and sculpture, to\nexperience emotion, to lie in bed and dream, to see places, to meet people.<\/em>\nSangharakshita 2 wanted to realise the\ntruth, to read and write philosophy, to observe the precepts, to get up early\nand meditate, to mortify the flesh, to fast and pray.[7]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two sub-personalities are hardly unique. They reflect\nthe varying dominance of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and\nreflect similar tensions in all of us. However, Sangharakshita\u2019s awareness of\nthe tensions they produced and of the difficulties in integrating them form the\nbiographical basis of some of the most important of his ideas. It is only\nthrough our practical engagement with our contradictions that we make spiritual\nprogress.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

c.   \nThe Practical Standpoint for Assessment<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How is it possible to assess the work of such a substantial\nbut yet elusive figure as Sangharakshita? The task is difficult. Anybody\nundertaking it will have a point of view, and, however great the care with\nwhich they proceed, may misinterpret him or be partial in their assessments.\nBut it is also important to attempt an assessment. Discussion about Sangharakshita\u2019s\nideas has too often been polarised between uncritical insiders and dismissive\noutsiders, each equipped with an entirely different selection of assumptions\nand a different set of priorities. For the uncritical insiders to edge towards\na fuller understanding of the limitations of Sangharakshita\u2019s thinking, and the\ndismissive outsiders to recognise more of what it has to offer, some assessment\nneeds to be attempted, however imperfect, that attempts to address both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make it clearer from what standpoint I intend to assess\nSangharakshita\u2019s thought, I will first say a little more about my own\nstandpoint. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

My own point of view is formed by commitment to the Middle\nWay, which I understand as a general principal of integrated judgement that can\nbe followed by anyone in any context or tradition. My understanding of the\nMiddle Way has been profoundly shaped by Buddhism and indeed by\nSangharakshita\u2019s thinking, but it has also been influenced by many other\nsources: for example by study of the Western philosophical tradition and its\nlimitations; by the Critical Thinking tradition in education; by the philosophy\nof science; by psychology \u2013 Jungian, cognitive and developmental; by the\nneuroscience of brain lateralisation as developed by Iain McGilchrist; by the\nembodied meaning theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. These other\ninfluences, though, are intellectual ones that have helped me to interpret the\ndirection of practice that I originally absorbed from my formative time in\ncontact with the Triratna Buddhist Order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Middle Way is a method of judging that implies a motive\nand direction of life informed by developing awareness. It can perhaps be most\nimmediately experienced in meditation, in the process of distraction from one\u2019s\nintended focus and recovery, where we become aware of our tendency to\ntemporarily slip into entirely different goals and assumptions from the ones we\nthought we were motivated by. When we do this, we temporarily lose our capacity\nto hold more than one motive in mind in a wider awareness, and become fixated\nby the distraction: it becomes the whole story. The recognition of this\ntendency to believe we have the whole story, and the practice of avoiding it\nthrough wider and more integrated awareness, is the Middle Way. It can be\napplied in almost any situation, because it is a feature of human judgement,\nand is very obviously not limited to Buddhist contexts of practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have produced a developed body of work, including the four\nvolume Middle Way Philosophy<\/em> series[8]<\/a>,\nwhich explores this perspective and its application. So, I have my theory, you\nmight say. Am I thus planning to evaluate Sangharakshita solely by judging how\nfar it agrees with or disagrees with that theory? The idea of such an approach\nconjures up the disagreeable image of the Procrustean Bed, whose occupants are\ntrimmed to fit its pre-existing length. What I hope will save me from such a\ntorturous approach is the recognition of how much these ideas are themselves a\ndevelopment of some of Sangharakshita\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is only in retrospect that I have recognised how much I\nowe some of the central, universal elements of Middle Way Philosophy to\nSangharakshita\u2019s influence. Taking the Middle Way itself seriously is one of\nthese. The concept of integration, though broadly Jungian, is one that I first\nunderstood via Sangharakshita, and, in discussion, Sangharakshita says he\nlargely developed it for himself rather than from Jung. Sangharakshita\u2019s\n\u2018provisional belief\u2019 becomes \u2018provisionality\u2019 \u2013 a central theme of Middle Way\nPhilosophy. Perhaps most importantly, Sangharakshita\u2019s essay \u2018Mind Reactive and\nCreative\u2019 is almost certainly the first source of my understanding of open and\nclosed feedback loops \u2013 which one can also find in many other places, helping\nto distinguish a provisional (creative) way of thinking from a dogmatic and\nabsolute one. It is these kinds of universal ideas in Sangharakshita that I\nwill begin with, because in my view they form the basis for a wider\nunderstanding of Sangharakshita\u2019s importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, no, I am not setting out to fit Sangharakshita\u2019s thought\nto a Procrustean Bed. Rather I will be using the most universal and helpful\nelements of Sangharakshita\u2019s teachings (which happen to be consistent with my\nown views) as the basis for judging the rest. Of course, the selection of what\nis most universal and helpful remains my own selection, despite the\njustifications I will give to it. It is not a divinely ordained perfect\nselection, and I expect some to disagree with it. Nevertheless, this still\nseems to me the best way to approach a critical reading of Sangharakshita. I\nwould ask those who disagree with it, rather than criticising it only in the\nabstract, to reflect on what alternative means they would use to accomplish the\nsame end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those with a traditionalist allegiance to Buddhism may well\nrespond that it is the Buddhist tradition itself that they would prefer to use\nas basis of judgement. After all, Sangharakshita\u2019s own allegiance to that\ntradition has been profound since he first read the Diamond Sutra at the age of\nsixteen. In practice, however, I think that this would result in a much cruder\nProcrustean Bed than any other approach. The Buddhist tradition is a very\nvaried and disputed tradition, and Sangharakshita\u2019s approach has always been to\ntry to find the helpful core of that tradition. If you want to limit your\nevaluation to an appeal to Buddhist tradition, but do not simply accept\nSangharakshita\u2019s own interpretation of that tradition as an absolute source of\nknowledge, then you will have to adopt the standpoint of another traditional\nschool of Buddhism to evaluate his interpretation. Sangharakshita has\nchallenged all of these schools, from the hypocrisy created by Theravadin\nmonasticism to the ethical limitations of Zen. Despite drawing on all the\nBuddhist schools, he does not wholly accept any of them. Some of\nSangharakshita\u2019s crudest critics, such as the author of the online \u2018FWBO Files\u2019[9]<\/a>\ntake the approach that Sangharakshita\u2019s teachings are \u2018not true Buddhism\u2019\nbecause they don\u2019t accord with a traditional Buddhist school or lineage.\nIronically, then, some of the least Buddhist in spirit are the most \u2018Buddhist\u2019\nin form. There is no chance of even understanding Sangharakshita\u2019s approach\nfully if you are not willing to move beyond the assumption that one traditional\nschool of Buddhism is the correct one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another possible approach would, of course, be a scholarly\none based on reference to Buddhist scriptures. The challenge would then be to\njudge whether Sangharakshita\u2019s teachings accorded with those scriptures. However,\ngiven that Sangharakshita has already made a lifetime\u2019s project of studying and\ninterpreting those scriptures, not only would such a scholarly survey be\nforbiddingly vast, but it would also have to be based on some other assumptions\nthan his about how those scriptures should be selected and interpreted. The\nProcrustean Bed would then be applied indeed, with a particular scholarly basis\nof interpretation merely opposed to his. Such an approach would also be missing\na more basic point: that scriptures are there to serve human practical insight,\nnot vice-versa. Your view may be inspired and informed by Buddhist scriptures,\nbut it cannot be entirely justified by them. It must stand in its own right for\nits practical value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These traditionalist and scholarly ways of judging\nSangharakshita\u2019s ideas, then, would in my view not be adequate. They would also\nbe of very limited interest, directed only at a small group of narrowly focused\nBuddhist scholars. To judge Sangharakshita\u2019s ideas in a relevant and helpful\nway, the criteria for doing so must be practical and universal. I use the term\n\u2018practical\u2019 here in a broad sense. It does not necessarily mean offering\nspecific instructions for how to act in a specific situation. However, a\n\u2018practical\u2019 teaching does offer the potential<\/em>\nto change one\u2019s approach to a specific situation in experience, when reflected\nupon and applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this sense, assertions of a kind that only have an\nabstract, self-reinforcing significance, and that cannot be applied in this\nway, can be judged unhelpful because they are not practical. Generalisation by\nitself is not a bar to practicality \u2013 the test being whether a generalisation\ndoes in fact apply to a wide range of cases without evident exception. Judgements\nabout which beliefs can be helpfully applied and which cannot of course need to\ntake as much account as possible of the context in which those beliefs are\nunderstood. They also need to be provisional \u2013 open to comparison and\ncorrection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This book aims to make practically helpful generalisations\nabout the helpfulness or otherwise of Sangharakshita\u2019s generalisations about\nthe spiritual life. Its judgements aim to be provisional, and will be made on\nthe basis of listening to both sides of the debate about Sangharakshita, as\nwell as responding to feedback. However, in the end, judgements are needed, and\nI take responsibility for those judgements. Even if you end up disagreeing with\nthem, I hope that you will feel that I have proceeded in a spirit of\nprovisionality, and that they are practically motivated.

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>\nQuoted in Bunting (1997)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a>\nThe Cult Information Centre offers five defining features of a cult, none of\nwhich can be clearly applied to Triratna: http:\/\/www.cultinformation.org.uk\/question_what-is-a-cult.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>\nSangharakshita (1991,1996,1997a & 2003)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a>\nSangharakshita (1987)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a>\nVajragupta (2010) gives a reliable account of the history of the movement from\nthis point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>\nSee thebuddhistcentre.com for up to date information <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a>\nSangharakshita (1996) p.436<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>\nEllis (2012, 2013a, 2013b, & 2015)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> www.ex-cult.org\/fwbo\/fwbofiles.htm<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The following extract consists in the Introduction to The Thought of Sangharakshita: A Critical Assessment, reproduced by permission of the publisher, Equinox. 1.   Introduction a.    Meeting Sangharakshita It\u2019s a pleasant but chilly winter\u2019s day as I cycle through the lanes of Herefordshire, England, and leave my bike by the pond at the entrance to Adhisthana, […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_oct_exclude_from_cache":false,"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":935,"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/934\/revisions\/935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robertmellis.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}