Ask the monk…

This week’s question, from Skanda in Atlanta, GA:

“Namaste, Khenpo! I am curious about something you’ve often said. You speak of the importance of non-attachment, and yet you left the monastery and ashram life to teach within the world itself. You are in a relationship, you work 12-18 hours a day at your business, in addition to all of the work you do teaching and writing, and you encourage others to join you in your work feeding the homeless and poor. I don’t understand how that is a life of detachment, when it seems to be preoccupied with the world itself. I mean no disrespect, but have been thinking about entering the monastic life in order to focus on my spirituality, so I wondered why you would ever have left.”

Thanks for taking the time to ask such a sincere question, Skanda, and know that there could be no offense taken!

There are some concepts which I believe sometime suffer the ill-effects of the subtle differences between the original languages of the Great Teachers and the Western vernacular. The English language employs so many layers of meaning and use to certain words, that we can frequently misunderstand what was originally meant. We see this in studying the Buddha Dharma, Sanatana Dharma and Dharma of the Christ especially. Such words as “non-attachment”, “emptiness”, “at hand” and even references to divinity are among the most often misunderstood and mistranslated.

You are correct in your assessment that my path is a path of non-attachment, and I will spend every day of my life working on that path, since attachments seem to arise and challenge the path daily. I will admit that it was easier to avoid the circumstances that led to attachment, when I lived within the structure of a monastery or ashram life. And at the time, that was the right place for me to be.

Realise too, however, that non-attachment does not mean apathy or indifference. The indifferent heart is not “unattached” at all. In fact, indifference only arises from the ego-mind. Those who take living in a monastery or ashram seriously are often among the most compassionate, socially-concerned, and engaged individuals I know. The commitment to become non-attached is often referred to as a vow of “detachment”, but we must understand what it is that one is choosing (or vowing themselves) to become detached from.

One ought not seek detachment from others. That would be unhealthy, unreasonable and selfish. Instead, one seeks detachment from the possessiveness that exists within our ego-minds.

I would prefer to live my life in the rhythms of that monastery that we had to leave so many years ago. It was indeed liberating to be able to focus 100% of our efforts each day to feeding and caring for the sick, hungry and marginalised… to teach my monks and nuns about the Dharma… to be unconcerned with the minutia of paying the rent or buying food, etc. And it is because of the good I know that came of such things that I am committed to being able to do that again.

But non-attachment doesn’t absolve one of the real responsibilities in life. For example, there is an ashram where many of my spiritual sisters and brothers live, where the residents pay almost twice as much for rent and food than I currently exist on. I wanted to live there at one time, but simply could not afford to do so. These folks work and work hard in the world, and yet they are every bit as enmeshed in the life of bhaktis, sanyassin, and monks as in any other cloistered monastery.

Right now, because we do not have the benefit of benefactors, I work 18 hours a day to sustain the work we do, and hopefully move us closer to the day when we can return to that simpler life. But I do not personally take any of the money that is earned for me selfishly, and am not attached to the money as a possession. Sometimes, I think that working 18 hours a day has been better for me, because it challenges me more intensely to be unattached.

And yes, I am in a committed relationship, and that will be the case for as long as that is mutually agreed upon as being healthy and affirming for both of us. Again, there is no attachment, because I share myself wholly with him, without expecting anything in return, and he does the same thing. We don’t “own” one another, and don’t subscribe to the societal ideologies of “marriage”, “monogamy”, or any other possessive concepts. We are two people, who share a special mutual love and companionship, who have chosen to journey along this road together, and who may well have done so in previous lives.

As for the insistence I have that our Order feed the poor and homeless, work to care for the sick and dying, and be engaged in social justice, the teaching of the Christ and the Buddha compel me to believe that a life without those engagements would be a life wasted.

“Whatsoever you do to the least of these,” Rabbi Jesus taught, “you do for me.”

In the Vimalkirti Sutra, the Buddha is said to have taught the importance of caring for the temporal needs of others, before trying to help them with their spiritual journey. Jesus surely understood this, as we recall from the story of feeding the multitudes and making sure the wedding guests had enough wine. Buddha is said to have taught:

“He makes his body into food and drink, first relieving hunger and thirst, then teaching people the truth. Where there are those in poverty and need, he comes with unending supplies, allowing them to encourage and lead others.”

Vimalakirti Sutra 8

The playwright Bertolt Brecht simplified this idea, suggesting, “First grub, then ethics.” In other words, until we’ve met the real needs of the body – including our own – the ideas and concepts of spiritual truth will ring hollow. This is because spirituality without compassion is useless. A belief in gods and goddesses without a foundation in compassion and service are little more than superstition.

I’d like to think that over the past ten years, the difficult circumstances of being forced to live outside the familiar monastic rhythm has enabled me to reach people I would never have reached before.

There might be a benefactor or benefactors out there who believe in what we are doing enough to make it possible for us to do that without the struggle and 18 hour days… I’d like to think that is possible… but I won’t sit around and wait for it.

Some will surely criticise me for being too unorthodox. That’s OK. Others will criticise me for holding those in positions of spiritual “authority” accountable to those they serve. That’s OK too. In the end, what will matter most is whether or not I served with compassion and inspired others to do the same.

Regarding your discernment process, Skanda, sit quietly and follow the voice within your heart. If you feel that you are called to life in a monastery or ashram, follow your heart and see where the journey takes you. Remember, however, that the advice of the Buddha is to follow the teaching, not the teacher. Don’t get caught up in “guru worship”, but instead, maintain a grateful heart to the teacher for leading you to discover that which already exists within you.

I will remember you in our liturgies and pujas, and send you my love!

Namasté!

-- dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda

Follow me on Twitter  |  Visit DharmadudeUnplugged