|
||||||||||||||||
INTERVIEW
NDM Is it possible for a householder to attain complete liberation from samsara, attain “nibbana“ without completely giving up the sense pleasures? Ajahn Brahmali: It is necessary to give up the sense pleasures in the sense that you have to give up craving for them. This can be done by a householder, but the moment you reach complete liberation from samsāra you will also have given up the state of being a householder and you are effectively a monastic from that point on. According to the early Buddhist texts, you are no longer able to store up goods in the way you formerly did as a householder. At the same time, even a fully awakened person still lives in the world and as such experiences the objects of the senses. A fully awakened person can appreciate a meal, for instance, but will not crave for the sensual enjoyment of food. Craving can perhaps be defined as that state of mind which leads to either disappointment/frustration or delight. Someone who has attained complete liberation from samsāra will not feel disappointed or delighted regardless of the sensory input. NDM: In the United States, there are a few householders I have come across who claim that they are "arahants". Some use the Sanskrit term “arhat”, or variations of this like “arahat”. Is there any difference with the Pali arahant and the Sanskrit arhat? Does one have more of a liberal meaning so to speak?
Ajahn
Brahmali: The Sanskrit Arhat is used by some of the other
schools of Buddhism, such as the Sarvāstivādins. Some of these
schools do have a slightly different conception of the
arahant. For example, some of the schools believed that
there were different categories of arahants and that some
of them were still subject to decline. However, I am not aware
that this actually opened up the possibility for the existence
of lay arahants. In any case, all of this is due to the
later exegetical work carried out on the early suttas. As
far as I know, there is no evidence in the early suttas,
in any language or in any school, that the term arahant
may mean anything different from how it is explained in the Pali
suttas. “A bhikkhu who is an arahant—one whose taints are destroyed … one completely liberated through final knowledge—is incapable of transgression in nine cases. (1) He is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life; (2) he is incapable of taking by way of theft what is not given; (3) he is incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse; (4) he is incapable of deliberately speaking falsehood; (5) he is incapable of storing things up in order to enjoy sensual pleasures as he did in the past when a layman; (6) he is incapable of rejecting the Buddha; (7) he is incapable of rejecting the Dhamma; (8) he is incapable of rejecting the Saṅgha; (9) he is incapable of rejecting the training.” (AN 9:8) Ajahn Brahmali: Yes, and the same passage is also found elsewhere. There are also other suttas that point in the same direction. NDM: Can you please send me a few passages on this. Ajahn Brahmali: According to MN 71, the arahant has severed the fetter of householdership. This seems to imply that, at the very least, they are not lay people in the ordinary sense. According to AN 1:248-67, there are no lay people in the category of "great wisdom," as there are monastics. The highest wisdom in Buddhism is that of arahantship. It follows that the most reasonable explanation for why this category is missing for lay people is that there are no lay arahants. At AN 2:132-33 the Buddha says that a male householder should take Citta and Hatthaka of Ālavī as his standard to be emulated, and a female householder Khujjuttara and Velukandaki Nandamātā. All of these where anāgāmīs, not arahants. For the monastics the people to be emulated are all arahants (AN 2:130-31). NDM: Are there any exceptions to this rule. What if a householder lives in a cave or high up in the mountains like a Pratyekabuddha? Do these exist anywhere, or have you come across any like this? Ajahn Brahmali: The Pratyekabuddha is a fairly mythological figure, who exists only on the fringes of the Pali Canon. This does not mean that there are no such people, but just that everything about them is obscure. The orthodox Theravada position, and it is supported by some early sutta passages, is that Pratyekabuddhas cannot arise as long as the Buddhist dispensation is available. On the face of it, this makes sense, since anyone who has this kind of insight will recognize that their insight is aligned with Buddhism, and they would presumably call themselves a Buddhist. Moreover, they are likely to recognize this long before they actually achieve the status of Pratyekabuddha, and thus they would be followers of Buddhism already at an earlier stage Of course, one could object to this on various grounds. One could argue that a hermit may never have heard of Buddhism and therefore be a Pratyekabuddha nonetheless. Perhaps, but I think it is very unlikely. Anyone who follows the Buddhist path has a very clear and powerful teaching, but even then it takes tremendous persistence and commitment to practice the path to the end. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world, but how many arahants are there? (To be honest with you, I think the number is extremely small.) In other words, it is difficult enough when you have a teacher, let alone when you don't have one. Another thing is the problem of overestimation. Most people are prone to this, and it is much more of a problem when you live by yourself and don't have anyone to correct you. Overestimation was common already at the time of the Buddha (it is mentioned in the suttas, e.g. at AN 10:86 and I suspect the problem is much worse now. Far fewer awakened beings, but more overestimation: these two quite naturally go together, because of the lack of qualified people to guide you. Then there is the problem of judging whether someone else has achieved real awakening. This can be very tricky, because a person who has access to deep samādhi is very pure, and it is hard to distinguish such a person from someone who has achieved true awakening. It seems to me that people are often regarded as arahants on the wrong criteria. In conclusion, it is perhaps theoretically possible for a lay person to be a Pratyekabuddha, but it is extremely unlikely in practice. Even then, if they did find out about Buddhism, they would ordain as a monastic, because their mind would incline so strongly towards renunciation. Living as a lay arahant, by contrast, would seem altogether impossible. NDM: I have come across a few householder /Buddhist teachers who make claims to be an arahant. What is the Theraveda view on anyone making a public claim of being an arahant. Lay and monastic? Ajahn Brahmali: For a monastic to make such a claim is against the vinaya, the monastic rule, and as such is always suspicious. But even for a lay person to make such a claim does not seem right. Such claims would seem to conflict with the absence of a sense of self. In the early suttas, the arahants, when making a declaration of arahantship to the Buddha (and it is only to the Buddha) do so in impersonal terms, such as by saying that the three forms of conceit have been abandoned by anyone who has practiced the path to its end (e.g. at AN 6:49). This is very different from how most people make claims these days. NDM: Many of them speak about jhana attainment only as a way of measuring being an arahant and not the fetters model? What is your view on this? Ajahn Brahmali: This contradicts the early Buddhist suttas, and is perhaps a Vedantic influence. Jhāna/samādhi is essential on the path, but it is not enough in its own right. According to the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 2), the mistake of regarding deep samādhi as nirvāna goes all the way back to the Buddha. It would seem that this is an easy mistake to make because of the tremendous power of some of these states. Today, as Buddhism is gaining a footing in the West, but the understanding of the teachings is still often patchy, it is natural that such mistakes will be made with much greater frequency than in an established Buddhist culture. I have noticed that some of the people who claim to be awakened say that nothing much has changed in their life and that they carry on much as before, including having sexual relations. This is completely absurd from an early sutta point of view. My guess would be that such people have had some sort of samādhi experience. This is certainly valuable, but it is not awakening in an early Buddhist sense. NDM: And what about an anagami, (3rd stage of the path) would the same apply to them concerning sense pleasures, not feeling disappointed or delighted regardless of the sensory input? Ajahn Brahmali: Yes. The distinction between the arahant and the anāgāmī is subtle. NDM: The Buddha said: Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire — that is impossible. (MN 22.9). But some other types of Buddhist teacher’s today claim that they can engage in sexual relations without having sexual desire or clinging and attain "nirvana" (Sanskrit). Did the Buddha say anywhere in the suttas that this is possible? Ajahn Brahmali: No. Such ideas are completely opposed to the view of the early Buddhist suttas, and they show a lack of understanding on the part of these teachers. Sexuality is a form of craving, and as such it leads the mind out into the world and into the future. It is impossible to crave and be absolutely content and fully mindful at the same time. Arahantship is precisely the full ending of craving, the attainment of full contentment, and as such sexuality is impossible. One of the basic teachings of the suttas is that jhāna is more pleasurable than any sort of sensuality (e.g. MN 66). Anyone who has access to deep meditation would not want to waste their time by indulging in sensuality. This makes it clear why monastic life is so attractive to such people. Moreover, sensual indulgence will actually diminish one's ability to reach deep meditation. Why would anyone want to sacrifice a greater pleasure for a lesser one?
NDM: When the Buddha said to a monk who broke the monastic
code and indulged in sex: Did the Buddha give any sort of esoteric teachings to wealthy Kings who could not give up their duties, responsibilities about ways of circumventing this rule through tantra, or yoga, or other means? Meaning still having wives, consorts, concubines, mistresses and so on and attaining nirvana in samsara, or blending nirvana/samsara in some way? Ajahn Brahmali: This rule is for monastics and it doesn't apply to kings, etc. Most lay people would have had sexual relations, although there were a few noteworthy exceptions. Still, the question of whether the Buddha gave esoteric teachings is important. It should be clear enough for anyone who has a historical approach to Buddhism that the esoteric teachings found in the Tantras, and perhaps other places, where composed a very long time after the Buddha. The consensus among scholars seems to be that the Mahayana began in the first or second century BCE. But it took a long time from the formation of the initial ideas to the development of the more advanced philosophy, which included the Tantric teachings. I am not entirely sure when these esoteric teachings emerged, but it would probably have been after the middle of the first millennium CE. (See e.g. Wikipedia article on Vajrayana.) Also, in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) the Buddha explicitly denies that he gave esoteric teachings, saying that he makes no distinction between inner or outer. This fits with the overall picture of the early discourses. NDM: The para-canonical Milindapañha says: "...For a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day, he goes forth into homelessness or he attains final Nibbāna. That day is not able to pass without one or other of these events taking place." (Miln. VII, 2) Did the Buddha ever say this anywhere in the suttas? Ajahn Brahmali: It is sort of implied. Whenever householders attain arahanship in the early Buddhist suttas, they either become monastics straightaway (as in the case of Yasa in the Vinaya Pitaka), or their attainment happens on their deathbed.
NDM: I would also like to ask a couple of questions for the money section of the site. www.nondualitymagazine.org/nondualitymagazine.thepriceofenlightenment.contentspage.htm Today in the west there is a new sort of “Proclaim-Your-Attainments” American form of Buddhism emerging, mostly of householders that charge money for the dhamma. One of the ring leaders of this PYA movement who also claims to be an arahant, (but is married and a householder) says: “I believe that when Western dharma teachers can earn a moderate, middle-class income by dharma teaching alone, the dharma will have truly arrived in the West.”What do you think is going on here?
Ajahn Brahmali: I
think what is going
on is that people have no real concept of the importance of the
monastic Sangha. The monastic Sangha was instituted by the
Buddha because it was the best way of achieving results on the
Buddhist path. The monastic life takes more commitment to
Buddhism than lay life, and when it is well lived (and this is
an important proviso) it will therefore give faster and more
abundant results. Moreover, the monastic life is closer to the
ideal of awakening than lay life. That is, if you really have no
attachments or interest in sensual pleasures, this mental state
is outwardly quite naturally expressed through the monastic
life. The more advanced you are on the path, the more likely it
is that you will incline towards monasticism. (This is not to
say that all monastics are spiritually advanced, because one may
become a monastic for all sorts of reasons. In fact, only a tiny
percentage of monastics will have made good progress on the
spiritual path.) In addition to the above, there is something very powerful and beautiful about offering the Buddhist teachings for free. These teachings are truly priceless, and it is a shame to put a price on something so precious. Moreover, when you offer something for free you are engaging in an act of generosity. Sharing the Dharma out of the goodness of one's heart has a powerful positive effect on one's mind and the potential of propelling you forward on the path. Teaching the Dharma can be great source of happiness when done with the right intention. The effect on the recipient is obviously also very important. When they feel inspired by good teachings, they will often want to support the teacher in return. This gives another opportunity for doing an act of generosity, which has a similar effect of moving one's practice forward. In other words, when the Dharma is given for free it can give rise to a powerful virtuous circle that is hugely beneficial for both the teacher and the student. By charging for the Dharma we risk destroying this beautiful potential. In sum, we should be careful with discarding these ancient ideals, because they have a profound purpose on the spiritual path. Yes, Buddhism needs to adapt as it arrives in the West, but we have to be very careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. It seems to me that Buddhism will have truly arrived in the West when a well-practicing monastic Sangha is properly established, not when lay Dharma teachers "can earn a moderate, middle-class income by dharma teaching alone." NDM: Some western teachers in the US are creating a "neo Buddhism", a non dual Buddhism that they say is more scientific, like psychology, not so religious or spiritual, or meditative, where you charge the client by the hour in an office like setting. A new teacher-student model, based upon ongoing, one-on-one consultations on skype video, in person and so on. They say: "We also support the emergence of a new kind of spirituality, one not entrenched in dogmatism, but which is responsive to the latest findings in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and ecology." www.scienceandnonduality.com/speakers.shtml What’s your view on this? Ajahn Brahmali: I think we need a bit of humility. I suspect most societies tend to think of themselves as the apex of civilisation, and we are probably no different. No doubt our culture is advanced in many respects, not least in its technological prowess. Our scientific understanding of the world is equally quite impressive, at least by historical standards. But is it necessarily the case that our scientific understanding of the mind is more profound than the insights of someone with deep meditation? Do we know more about the mind than the Buddha? Hubris is always dangerous, and it is the sort of thing that will cause us to throw out things of real value. My point is that we should certainly use the tools of modern science, but at the same time we need to remember their limitations. In particular, the science of the mind is still very immature, and many of the leading scientists and philosophers in this area readily admit how little they actually understand, especially in regard to consciousness. In the light of this, is it really wise to throw out certain ancient Buddhist teachings, such as those on rebirth? There can be no doubt that the Buddha actually taught rebirth; this idea is just too integrated into the suttas as a whole. If we were to dismiss rebirth, we would be saying that the Buddha got it wrong. But if we find the Buddha's teachings to be insightful and powerful aids in our life, perhaps we need to give the Buddha the benefit of the doubt. This is what confidence, saddhā, is all about. We need to seriously consider the possibility that the Buddha saw deeper into the nature of existence than even our most advanced scientific knowledge.
END OF INTERVIEW
|
|
