Buddhism versus Academia: the True Individual and the Sangha
This article began as a preface to my next book, but quickly took on a life of its own, the matter concerning me being given by the current title. Clearly it is something that had been on my mind for a very long time, and needed to find expression. In no way, however, is it intended as a criticism of those who have laboured long and hard at academic prowess and derived much satisfaction from success at their self-appointed task, or if not from that, then from insights gained as it were accidentally along the way to receiving their accolade.
The ‘versus’ of the title points to what I believe is a current widely-held confusion amongst most westerners concerning intelligence, usually considered to reside chiefly in the brain, and Enlightenment, the spiritual attainment of highest wisdom and compassion. The confusion is, as we know, compounded by the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ heralded by such men as Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Emmanuel Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others. The enlightenment of which they spoke, the dream for which they yearned, however, was a chiefly rational one; reason, even critiqued as it was by Kant, was to be raised to the intellectual throne and expected to command the emotions. Thus was peace to prevail and those who used their reasoning powers to advantage to take the lead in an ever-improving world. A dream it soon proved to be. Industrialization began to produce hells on earth for those who had to work in factories, and two world wars finally put paid to the idea that reason and peace were synonymous. Since then, confusion concerning reason and emotion has prevailed to the detriment of the planet and all life-forms, and the current world-order is more and more obviously determined by considerations certainly not informed by reason – at least not by enlightened reason. These were some of the factors in my mind that led to what follows:
Ever since the dawn of human civilization, when ape-men began, with their burgeoning powers of speech, and with a marked aptitude for change and development – for evolution - to transform into homo sapiens, the species has puzzled and argued. But so long as the utterances of those newly-emergent men did not bring clarity and understanding, they quickly became frustrated with words, resorting to precipitate action and often to violence. Even when language had become more sophisticated and ideas more fully developed, the words and the ideas men used tended to congeal into opposing opinions and world views, zeitgeists that did not correspond with the real state of affairs – the ongoing, dynamic, unstoppable and utterly impersonal flow of energy that is life. The wise, however, seeing the danger of words and aware of their merely provisional and always metaphoric nature, used them poetically. When they were successful, the energies needed for creativity, friendship and kindly action were unblocked. William Blake was one such man:
“Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.”
from: The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
The third of Buddhism’s Three Jewels, its three highest values, is the Sangha, the communion of the wise. Its members have always tried to use words with a keen awareness both of their literal and their poetic meaning, and of their capacity both to produce discord and to engender understanding and harmony. However, despite having the outward appearance of a group phenomenon, the Sangha is, in its best and ideal form, a free association of true individuals; it avoids the group’s tendency to speedy, fruitless, inattentive verbiage and herd-like action. It has no leader in the sense of a Pope or Archbishop; there is no ultimate human authority. Even the Buddha looked up to and revered the principle he himself had discovered, symbolized by a golden Dharma Chakra, or Wheel of the Law. Buddha though he was, he was as subject to that Law as every living being.
To the extent that it is a free association of true individuals, Buddhism is not a group phenomenon at all. To be a true individual in the Buddhist sense requires an individual choice to leave behind group thinking and group association as fully as possible. It calls forth a personal commitment to treading a path of self-transformation leading to a transfiguration of self and world. It teaches the cultivation of a friendly and joyful, wise and compassionate attitude towards others. Success in its practice requires prolonged discipline; the will to overcome one’s selfish motivations, and the determination to seek and eventually to provide - for the benefit of others - those supportive conditions which enable one to achieve one’s purpose. What that purpose is and what some of these supportive conditions are we may investigate later.
Buddhism does not require legitimation by the group - it does not require group approval or even group consensus, though if the Dharma, the teaching of the human historical Buddha Shakyamuni, did not appeal to the group in any way, clearly it would not have survived; the Buddha would not have himself become the timelessly unifying factor and inspiration for the greatly diverse and widespread spiritual communities that exist today, more than 2,500 years after his Enlightenment, nor would he attract those believing themselves, for the time being at least, outside or beyond his orbit. Without characteristics attractive to non-Buddhist practitioners and even non-practitioners, the Buddha-dharma would have been suppressed or eliminated long ago. What, however, will always prevent the universal espousal of Buddhism is that it challenges the assumptions of the group with its often ruthless reliance on power and its unreflective and merciless attachment to views and opinions. An Enlightened one or one living for the sake of Enlightenment for all - a Buddha or Bodhisattva - does not therefore emerge in the world solely because of what the group makes of him or her; they are not legitimized by consensus or marked by the attainment of a University degree, though a contemporary Bodhisattva might conceivably acquire such a distinction if it turned out to be really necessary. The Buddha was, and the Bodhisattvas are emotionally and spiritually as independent of groups and group thinking as they can possibly be. They are sustained by the clarity, intensity, depth, purity and pragmatism of their personal vision of the limitations of the world and their knowledge of the way from its oppressions and illusions towards the ultimate security of Buddhahood. Their vision is also, of course, sustained by their personal conduct that is at one with that vision. They walk the talk.
The academic rigour required to obtain a University degree is to be respected, but all too often such a qualification nurtures an attitude of complacent superiority, a tendency not to take seriously someone who does not possess similar qualifications, and especially not to take seriously someone who is committed to a particular spiritual vision or religious cause. It must be admitted, however, that a narrow or fundamentalist religious attitude is a hindrance both to critical enquiry and to personal spiritual development. Of course, if one is fortunate enough to have a practising Buddhist as an academic supervisor, then such strictures may not apply. The award of a Ph.D. or a higher degree may then be the result of Dharma enquiry very much in the ancient Buddhist tradition.
Spiritual vision, then, arises at first in the lone individual, and stands, in at least some respects, in contrast to the culture from which it has emerged. That culture is usually, though not always, imbued with its own primitive religious or spiritual beliefs. The visionary is therefore often unpopular and does not meet with universal approval amongst the uninitiated and uncommitted. Though in its insistence upon objectivity, Buddhism is in some ways akin to science, its important perceptions and insights are often not verifiable by conventional scientific method. The doctrine of karma and re-becoming, for instance, cannot be rigorously tested to the satisfaction of science as at present understood and formulated. However, in this case there are many highly suggestive and well-researched cases of recollection by children of previous lives, as well as experience of spiritual death and re-becoming in this life. There are also many people who have strange dreams throughout their lives of occurrences in the past, even in the distant past, for which there is no explanation in the present life. All this, as well as the Buddha’s own recorded teaching is suggestive, if not conclusive from a scientific point of view.
Spiritual commitment, especially in Buddhism, does not confer superior status. What we call spirituality is dangerous, for even the spiritually committed, being as yet unenlightened, may be mistaken, and all too often may become self-serving and even fanatical, as we have witnessed in recent times in Sri Lanka and Burma. But involvement in academia has special problems of its own. The acquisition of a University degree is usually subject to considerable pressures, explicit or implicit, to conform to current and even fashionable modes of thought, otherwise one may simply fail to obtain the desired distinction. If one’s supervisor were enlightened, it might be a different matter! At its best, the academic approach encourages an attitude of scepticism; a belief that the further one probes, the more remains yet to be discovered. Whilst such an attitude is indeed of great value and often reveals hidden treasures, it may also serve to prevent the kind of commitment that will lead to success in meditation, which is crucial to the higher stages of spiritual development.
Science and academic research, like Buddhism, value objectivity. Yet the nature of the observer is usually ignored by non-Buddhists or non-practising Buddhists, a category that unfortunately does exist. A scientist would not try to observe a distant galaxy through the haze of atmospheric pollution found in cities, or attempt to discern the details of a microscopic object with a poorly adjusted microscope, for he knows that his instrument must be clean and properly adjusted for it to yield reliable results, and that the conditions of observation must be such as not to distort or obscure what is observed. Why then is the nature of the ultimate observer – the mind itself – usually so studiously ignored?
What we call mind is something to be known through introspection and self-discipline. The initial stages of practice require faith that such discipline will indeed yield the desired result. Such self-discipline and such faith are not common. But if one is to know thoroughly the nature of one’s own mind, then one needs to engage in tried and tested meditation practices until success is attained. Furthermore, unless one is a truly extraordinary person – and the scope for self-deception here is vast – one will need the guidance of a spiritual mentor or spiritual friend. Furthermore, in order to sustain the necessary spiritual discipline, effective, heartfelt commitment is necessary. The body-mind complex is like a wild horse: difficult to tame, difficult to direct. However, without knowing thoroughly, from one’s own direct experience, the nature of the observer – one’s own mind - one will not come to know the true nature of what is observed, for when all is said and done, it is one’s mind that studies and all too often colours, modifies and even distorts the object of perception. This principle, of course, the theoretical mathematician and physicist Heisenberg brought to the attention of modern science. It came to be known as the Uncertainty principle, and its implications now find embodiment in Quantum theory. However, reflections of this sort and of the kind encouraged by a modern course in theoretical science or in philosophy will not necessarily make one more apt to commit oneself to the practice of meditation in the context of a spiritually vital sangha. It will not assist in the process of spiritual realization and may even militate against it.
To attain success in meditation, a number of things are necessary: a pure motivation, dauntless determination, and supportive conditions. One needs to have faith that there is in fact a realisable and worthwhile goal – knowledge, vision and eventual personal treading of the path of spiritual development leading to Enlightenment. The motivation of the ordinary academic is rarely if ever the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, much less the realisation of the soteriological ideal. One strives for a University degree often conditioned, no doubt, by a desire to be a teacher in the narrow sense, or for status, power, influence, money, a better job, or even the wish simply to mark time and avoid getting down to the difficult business of living in the world rather than in an ivory tower. Worst of all, academia is prone to think that the knowledge and practice of Buddhism is dependent on (or even ‘seen through’) by its own department of Buddhist Studies, rather than vice versa. Academia is to be respected to the extent that is conscious of its faults and limitations when compared with a spiritually vital sangha.
The Buddhist individual is thus no mere product of group attitudes. He maintains his knowledge and practice of the path of spiritual emancipation even if no else in the whole world sees what he sees, or upholds what he upholds. What he (or she) sees and upholds is of course no arbitrary opinion or blind belief. What the Buddhist visionary sees and upholds is a vision of the real nature of one’s experience: a perfectly clear and dispassionate seeing of one’s own life and one’s own actions in their depths and the principles governing them. By a deep and sincere empathy with others whose lives one studies or knows by direct experience, one can then begin to gain insights into their inner lives too.
A visionary, of course, is a rare bird, and at least until the advent of the Internet was not usually able to draw wide attention to their vision, especially if it was ignored or opposed by many powerful group members. The Buddha’s vision, however, attained more than two and a half millennia ago, is fortunately still with us because it is constantly rediscovered and re-invigorated by determined spiritual aspirants. It was attained in the first place by the clarity and depth of the Buddha’s meditation, together with his indomitable commitment. It was sustained, in the case of his disciples, by personal discipline and training in accordance with his communication to them of his experience of liberation and his personal example of kindness and compassion.
The human historical Buddha Shakyamuni, ‘our’ Buddha, the Buddha of this world-system of ours, was the first man known to human history to attain the realization of complete and perfect Enlightenment. This was attested to by vast numbers of his compatriots, disciples, friends and even enemies, who witnessed that he lived happily, wisely and compassionately according to the tenets he taught throughout his long life, and passed away in full awareness amongst numerous faithful followers, exhorting them, as he had always done, to “strive, with mindfulness”. He was the first human being to discern and then to permeate his whole being with the knowledge and practice of the principle he had discovered, that of the conscious evolution, purification and transcendence of the human mind. He was able to communicate that self-transformative process despite the opposition, the ignorance, denials, pressures and arguments of the groups and group members of his time because he was completely confident of himself and his vision; he knew from his own direct experience that it was true, complete and perfect in all its aspects. He knew clearly how the bits of the jig-saw puzzle of merely human existence were linked; he saw the machine-like nature of that human existence and human consciousness, and saw it with luminous clarity. He knew the way out of such samsaric existence, and he knew what lay beyond, because he himself embodied that.
According to his own account, he doubted for a while after his Enlightenment whether others would be open to what he had to say. He doubted whether they would be receptive to his vision of ordinary human existence, doubted whether they would be open to practising the Middle Way that he followed the post-ascetic phase of his quest. He even doubted, for a climactic moment, whether it would be at all possible to communicate the essence of his experience in such a way that others could follow. But then it occurred to him that there were people with “but little dust on their eyes” with whom he could share his vision. It was only at this crucial point, one could say, that the Buddha really became the Buddha, became not only the Wise One but also the Compassionate One. So the Buddha began to speak - to communicate. And of course he had to communicate, at first, using the ideas and concepts, the language and words currently available. Little by little he began to exert more of an influence on other spiritual seekers and on the various groups – at first on his contemporaries, the Indians of his time with their great variety of speculative philosophies - than they exerted on him. Within a year or so of the first communication of his vision there were sixty men who had themselves become fully enlightened by attending critically to the Buddha’s instructions and following his example. They constituted the first sangha, the first free association of Enlightened individuals. The Buddha suggested that each of them went off in different directions “bahujan hitay, bahujan sukhay” – for the benefit of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk. Since that time, more than twenty-five centuries ago, untold millions throughout Asia, and now, increasingly, people in the West, have come under the beneficial influence of the teaching of the Sage of the Shakyas. Ever since those momentous beginnings involving the Enlightened Teacher and a few disciples, Buddhist activity has left a record of sublime thought and beneficial activity in living traditions of spiritual practice; in literature, in calligraphy, in art and in architecture. It may yet be recognised as having had a more beneficial and even decisive effect on human consciousness than any other on planet earth, and may yet produce a flowering of the human spirit throughout the world surpassing in its creativity, spiritual effectiveness and beauty, anything that has gone before. In extolling the Shakyamuni and championing the Sangha, we have come a long way indeed from the slender ivory towers of academia, beautiful though they may be.
***************
This article began as a preface to my next book, but quickly took on a life of its own, the matter concerning me being given by the current title. Clearly it is something that had been on my mind for a very long time, and needed to find expression. In no way, however, is it intended as a criticism of those who have laboured long and hard at academic prowess and derived much satisfaction from success at their self-appointed task, or if not from that, then from insights gained as it were accidentally along the way to receiving their accolade.
The ‘versus’ of the title points to what I believe is a current widely-held confusion amongst most westerners concerning intelligence, usually considered to reside chiefly in the brain, and Enlightenment, the spiritual attainment of highest wisdom and compassion. The confusion is, as we know, compounded by the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ heralded by such men as Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Emmanuel Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others. The enlightenment of which they spoke, the dream for which they yearned, however, was a chiefly rational one; reason, even critiqued as it was by Kant, was to be raised to the intellectual throne and expected to command the emotions. Thus was peace to prevail and those who used their reasoning powers to advantage to take the lead in an ever-improving world. A dream it soon proved to be. Industrialization began to produce hells on earth for those who had to work in factories, and two world wars finally put paid to the idea that reason and peace were synonymous. Since then, confusion concerning reason and emotion has prevailed to the detriment of the planet and all life-forms, and the current world-order is more and more obviously determined by considerations certainly not informed by reason – at least not by enlightened reason. These were some of the factors in my mind that led to what follows:
Ever since the dawn of human civilization, when ape-men began, with their burgeoning powers of speech, and with a marked aptitude for change and development – for evolution - to transform into homo sapiens, the species has puzzled and argued. But so long as the utterances of those newly-emergent men did not bring clarity and understanding, they quickly became frustrated with words, resorting to precipitate action and often to violence. Even when language had become more sophisticated and ideas more fully developed, the words and the ideas men used tended to congeal into opposing opinions and world views, zeitgeists that did not correspond with the real state of affairs – the ongoing, dynamic, unstoppable and utterly impersonal flow of energy that is life. The wise, however, seeing the danger of words and aware of their merely provisional and always metaphoric nature, used them poetically. When they were successful, the energies needed for creativity, friendship and kindly action were unblocked. William Blake was one such man:
“Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.”
from: The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
The third of Buddhism’s Three Jewels, its three highest values, is the Sangha, the communion of the wise. Its members have always tried to use words with a keen awareness both of their literal and their poetic meaning, and of their capacity both to produce discord and to engender understanding and harmony. However, despite having the outward appearance of a group phenomenon, the Sangha is, in its best and ideal form, a free association of true individuals; it avoids the group’s tendency to speedy, fruitless, inattentive verbiage and herd-like action. It has no leader in the sense of a Pope or Archbishop; there is no ultimate human authority. Even the Buddha looked up to and revered the principle he himself had discovered, symbolized by a golden Dharma Chakra, or Wheel of the Law. Buddha though he was, he was as subject to that Law as every living being.
To the extent that it is a free association of true individuals, Buddhism is not a group phenomenon at all. To be a true individual in the Buddhist sense requires an individual choice to leave behind group thinking and group association as fully as possible. It calls forth a personal commitment to treading a path of self-transformation leading to a transfiguration of self and world. It teaches the cultivation of a friendly and joyful, wise and compassionate attitude towards others. Success in its practice requires prolonged discipline; the will to overcome one’s selfish motivations, and the determination to seek and eventually to provide - for the benefit of others - those supportive conditions which enable one to achieve one’s purpose. What that purpose is and what some of these supportive conditions are we may investigate later.
Buddhism does not require legitimation by the group - it does not require group approval or even group consensus, though if the Dharma, the teaching of the human historical Buddha Shakyamuni, did not appeal to the group in any way, clearly it would not have survived; the Buddha would not have himself become the timelessly unifying factor and inspiration for the greatly diverse and widespread spiritual communities that exist today, more than 2,500 years after his Enlightenment, nor would he attract those believing themselves, for the time being at least, outside or beyond his orbit. Without characteristics attractive to non-Buddhist practitioners and even non-practitioners, the Buddha-dharma would have been suppressed or eliminated long ago. What, however, will always prevent the universal espousal of Buddhism is that it challenges the assumptions of the group with its often ruthless reliance on power and its unreflective and merciless attachment to views and opinions. An Enlightened one or one living for the sake of Enlightenment for all - a Buddha or Bodhisattva - does not therefore emerge in the world solely because of what the group makes of him or her; they are not legitimized by consensus or marked by the attainment of a University degree, though a contemporary Bodhisattva might conceivably acquire such a distinction if it turned out to be really necessary. The Buddha was, and the Bodhisattvas are emotionally and spiritually as independent of groups and group thinking as they can possibly be. They are sustained by the clarity, intensity, depth, purity and pragmatism of their personal vision of the limitations of the world and their knowledge of the way from its oppressions and illusions towards the ultimate security of Buddhahood. Their vision is also, of course, sustained by their personal conduct that is at one with that vision. They walk the talk.
The academic rigour required to obtain a University degree is to be respected, but all too often such a qualification nurtures an attitude of complacent superiority, a tendency not to take seriously someone who does not possess similar qualifications, and especially not to take seriously someone who is committed to a particular spiritual vision or religious cause. It must be admitted, however, that a narrow or fundamentalist religious attitude is a hindrance both to critical enquiry and to personal spiritual development. Of course, if one is fortunate enough to have a practising Buddhist as an academic supervisor, then such strictures may not apply. The award of a Ph.D. or a higher degree may then be the result of Dharma enquiry very much in the ancient Buddhist tradition.
Spiritual vision, then, arises at first in the lone individual, and stands, in at least some respects, in contrast to the culture from which it has emerged. That culture is usually, though not always, imbued with its own primitive religious or spiritual beliefs. The visionary is therefore often unpopular and does not meet with universal approval amongst the uninitiated and uncommitted. Though in its insistence upon objectivity, Buddhism is in some ways akin to science, its important perceptions and insights are often not verifiable by conventional scientific method. The doctrine of karma and re-becoming, for instance, cannot be rigorously tested to the satisfaction of science as at present understood and formulated. However, in this case there are many highly suggestive and well-researched cases of recollection by children of previous lives, as well as experience of spiritual death and re-becoming in this life. There are also many people who have strange dreams throughout their lives of occurrences in the past, even in the distant past, for which there is no explanation in the present life. All this, as well as the Buddha’s own recorded teaching is suggestive, if not conclusive from a scientific point of view.
Spiritual commitment, especially in Buddhism, does not confer superior status. What we call spirituality is dangerous, for even the spiritually committed, being as yet unenlightened, may be mistaken, and all too often may become self-serving and even fanatical, as we have witnessed in recent times in Sri Lanka and Burma. But involvement in academia has special problems of its own. The acquisition of a University degree is usually subject to considerable pressures, explicit or implicit, to conform to current and even fashionable modes of thought, otherwise one may simply fail to obtain the desired distinction. If one’s supervisor were enlightened, it might be a different matter! At its best, the academic approach encourages an attitude of scepticism; a belief that the further one probes, the more remains yet to be discovered. Whilst such an attitude is indeed of great value and often reveals hidden treasures, it may also serve to prevent the kind of commitment that will lead to success in meditation, which is crucial to the higher stages of spiritual development.
Science and academic research, like Buddhism, value objectivity. Yet the nature of the observer is usually ignored by non-Buddhists or non-practising Buddhists, a category that unfortunately does exist. A scientist would not try to observe a distant galaxy through the haze of atmospheric pollution found in cities, or attempt to discern the details of a microscopic object with a poorly adjusted microscope, for he knows that his instrument must be clean and properly adjusted for it to yield reliable results, and that the conditions of observation must be such as not to distort or obscure what is observed. Why then is the nature of the ultimate observer – the mind itself – usually so studiously ignored?
What we call mind is something to be known through introspection and self-discipline. The initial stages of practice require faith that such discipline will indeed yield the desired result. Such self-discipline and such faith are not common. But if one is to know thoroughly the nature of one’s own mind, then one needs to engage in tried and tested meditation practices until success is attained. Furthermore, unless one is a truly extraordinary person – and the scope for self-deception here is vast – one will need the guidance of a spiritual mentor or spiritual friend. Furthermore, in order to sustain the necessary spiritual discipline, effective, heartfelt commitment is necessary. The body-mind complex is like a wild horse: difficult to tame, difficult to direct. However, without knowing thoroughly, from one’s own direct experience, the nature of the observer – one’s own mind - one will not come to know the true nature of what is observed, for when all is said and done, it is one’s mind that studies and all too often colours, modifies and even distorts the object of perception. This principle, of course, the theoretical mathematician and physicist Heisenberg brought to the attention of modern science. It came to be known as the Uncertainty principle, and its implications now find embodiment in Quantum theory. However, reflections of this sort and of the kind encouraged by a modern course in theoretical science or in philosophy will not necessarily make one more apt to commit oneself to the practice of meditation in the context of a spiritually vital sangha. It will not assist in the process of spiritual realization and may even militate against it.
To attain success in meditation, a number of things are necessary: a pure motivation, dauntless determination, and supportive conditions. One needs to have faith that there is in fact a realisable and worthwhile goal – knowledge, vision and eventual personal treading of the path of spiritual development leading to Enlightenment. The motivation of the ordinary academic is rarely if ever the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, much less the realisation of the soteriological ideal. One strives for a University degree often conditioned, no doubt, by a desire to be a teacher in the narrow sense, or for status, power, influence, money, a better job, or even the wish simply to mark time and avoid getting down to the difficult business of living in the world rather than in an ivory tower. Worst of all, academia is prone to think that the knowledge and practice of Buddhism is dependent on (or even ‘seen through’) by its own department of Buddhist Studies, rather than vice versa. Academia is to be respected to the extent that is conscious of its faults and limitations when compared with a spiritually vital sangha.
The Buddhist individual is thus no mere product of group attitudes. He maintains his knowledge and practice of the path of spiritual emancipation even if no else in the whole world sees what he sees, or upholds what he upholds. What he (or she) sees and upholds is of course no arbitrary opinion or blind belief. What the Buddhist visionary sees and upholds is a vision of the real nature of one’s experience: a perfectly clear and dispassionate seeing of one’s own life and one’s own actions in their depths and the principles governing them. By a deep and sincere empathy with others whose lives one studies or knows by direct experience, one can then begin to gain insights into their inner lives too.
A visionary, of course, is a rare bird, and at least until the advent of the Internet was not usually able to draw wide attention to their vision, especially if it was ignored or opposed by many powerful group members. The Buddha’s vision, however, attained more than two and a half millennia ago, is fortunately still with us because it is constantly rediscovered and re-invigorated by determined spiritual aspirants. It was attained in the first place by the clarity and depth of the Buddha’s meditation, together with his indomitable commitment. It was sustained, in the case of his disciples, by personal discipline and training in accordance with his communication to them of his experience of liberation and his personal example of kindness and compassion.
The human historical Buddha Shakyamuni, ‘our’ Buddha, the Buddha of this world-system of ours, was the first man known to human history to attain the realization of complete and perfect Enlightenment. This was attested to by vast numbers of his compatriots, disciples, friends and even enemies, who witnessed that he lived happily, wisely and compassionately according to the tenets he taught throughout his long life, and passed away in full awareness amongst numerous faithful followers, exhorting them, as he had always done, to “strive, with mindfulness”. He was the first human being to discern and then to permeate his whole being with the knowledge and practice of the principle he had discovered, that of the conscious evolution, purification and transcendence of the human mind. He was able to communicate that self-transformative process despite the opposition, the ignorance, denials, pressures and arguments of the groups and group members of his time because he was completely confident of himself and his vision; he knew from his own direct experience that it was true, complete and perfect in all its aspects. He knew clearly how the bits of the jig-saw puzzle of merely human existence were linked; he saw the machine-like nature of that human existence and human consciousness, and saw it with luminous clarity. He knew the way out of such samsaric existence, and he knew what lay beyond, because he himself embodied that.
According to his own account, he doubted for a while after his Enlightenment whether others would be open to what he had to say. He doubted whether they would be receptive to his vision of ordinary human existence, doubted whether they would be open to practising the Middle Way that he followed the post-ascetic phase of his quest. He even doubted, for a climactic moment, whether it would be at all possible to communicate the essence of his experience in such a way that others could follow. But then it occurred to him that there were people with “but little dust on their eyes” with whom he could share his vision. It was only at this crucial point, one could say, that the Buddha really became the Buddha, became not only the Wise One but also the Compassionate One. So the Buddha began to speak - to communicate. And of course he had to communicate, at first, using the ideas and concepts, the language and words currently available. Little by little he began to exert more of an influence on other spiritual seekers and on the various groups – at first on his contemporaries, the Indians of his time with their great variety of speculative philosophies - than they exerted on him. Within a year or so of the first communication of his vision there were sixty men who had themselves become fully enlightened by attending critically to the Buddha’s instructions and following his example. They constituted the first sangha, the first free association of Enlightened individuals. The Buddha suggested that each of them went off in different directions “bahujan hitay, bahujan sukhay” – for the benefit of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk. Since that time, more than twenty-five centuries ago, untold millions throughout Asia, and now, increasingly, people in the West, have come under the beneficial influence of the teaching of the Sage of the Shakyas. Ever since those momentous beginnings involving the Enlightened Teacher and a few disciples, Buddhist activity has left a record of sublime thought and beneficial activity in living traditions of spiritual practice; in literature, in calligraphy, in art and in architecture. It may yet be recognised as having had a more beneficial and even decisive effect on human consciousness than any other on planet earth, and may yet produce a flowering of the human spirit throughout the world surpassing in its creativity, spiritual effectiveness and beauty, anything that has gone before. In extolling the Shakyamuni and championing the Sangha, we have come a long way indeed from the slender ivory towers of academia, beautiful though they may be.
***************