Sister Lucy and Ajahn Amaro

DAY OF DIALOGUE: THE GBI AND AMARAVATI

This year the Commission for Interreligious Dialogue of Great Britain and Ireland had its annual day of dialogue at Amaravati Buddhist Monastery on May 15. The topic that had been proposed for our meeting was how Buddhist and Catholic monastic men and women regard the future of monastic life and what we might be able to do together to insure that the treasure of monastic life be handed on to future generations. Ajahn Amaro, the Abbot of Amaravati and related monasteries, invited us to meet in Amaravati when he and the Buddhist brother-in-law of Sister Mary John visited Malling Abbey last year. On that occasion he told her and the other sisters at Malling how much he had appreciated our inter-monastic contacts, and that he hoped they would be renewed.

When the eleven Christian participants—monks, nuns, and oblates from four Anglican and two Roman Catholic monasteries—arrived, we were taken to a large hall with various Buddha images for the meal of the day at 11.30. Ajahn Amaro and Ajahn Sundara, the senior nun, welcomed us and explained how the meal would be served and eaten. Chairs were available as well as floor cushions. Men and women sat in separate places. After Ajahn Amaro chanted the blessing, several monks went up to receive the food from the kitchen servers, doing so in the traditional Buddhist monastic fashion that expresses their rule of eating only the food they have received as alms from others. On the day of our meeting the home community was experimenting with having the monks and nuns receive their food the same time. The reason they departed from their usual practice was that the number of guests included quite a few Christian nuns.

After we had all received our food, the monastic men and women, including the oblates, again separated and went to different rooms to take their food together in silence. The lay people remained in the large meeting/shrine room. After the meal the women moved to a nuns’ sitting room for coffee, tea or a cold drink and conversation. (Presumably the men were doing the same in the monks’ room.) We then met together again and had time for a walk around the monastery area, visiting the Temple and the Bodhinyana hall, which we were to use for our afternoon session. This walk was enlivened by our dodging in and out of shelter to avoid heavy showers of rain and hail.

We assembled for our afternoon session at around 1.30. Ajahn Amaro opened the meeting, and he and Sister Mary John explained the theme-question. Ajahn Amaro suggested that we approach the question of the future of monastic life by asking ourselves, “Patience? Is it possible for monasticism to continue to exist in this impatient world?”

The discussion was wide-ranging and thought-provoking. As might be expected, the group of monastics and oblates was clearly unanimous in their agreement that monastic life as such ought to continue. It was particularly interesting to hear oblates speak of their desire to become oblates because of their contact with the life and charism of the monastery they were affiliated with. We had a lively discussion about the different approaches to oblation and to equivalent or similar Buddhist practices. It was also interesting to note that the advantages and difficulties connected with having lay people associated with monastic communities seemed to be similar for both monastics and oblates. Practice varies greatly, even with regard to appearance. For instance, one Anglican oblate was wearing a modified monastic habit. He described how he came into contact with the monastery and in time became so “infected” with a desire for their spirit, prayer and way of life that he asked to become an oblate.

Ajahn Amaro referred to the very influential book by Raimundo Panikkar, Blessed Simplicity, originally published in 1992, and that led to a discussion about the “archetype of the monk within everyone”, the urge to seek the One reality—in Christian terms, to seek God—and the reasons people engaged in this search are drawn to monasteries.

Ajahn Sundara described how she had tried in vain in her earlier years to find a Christian teacher as she searched for a deeper spiritual practice. She eventually found what she was looking for through Ajahn Sumedho and became a Buddhist. This anecdote led to a discussion on the place of teaching within our traditions and the need in this day and age for a place where seekers after Truth can learn about the spiritual life. We heard about the practice of regular Dhamma talks and teaching on meditation at Amaravati. Ajahn Amaro mentioned that eighty to one-hundred people regularly come there for Saturday afternoon talks and for meditation periods. The other monasteries of the Ajahn Chah lineage have the same practice and experience. There is nothing quite like it in Christian monastic practice, though one of the oblates felt that the Christian practice of monastics offering spiritual direction was similar. Ajahn Amaro reminded us that in Buddhism the very title “Ajahn” means teacher. The pedagogical method of Buddhism, however, is not one of teaching down to ignorance. In the earliest Buddhist scriptures, Ananda, the disciple of the Buddha, always began his teaching with “This is what I heard. . . .” This is what we can do in the monastery: share our experience and help people get in touch with their own purity of heart.

Another topic that led to fruitful dialogue was the question of monastic enclosure and the practice of going out. The Theravada Forest Sangha tradition is mendicant (“like the Franciscans,” someone commented). However, Ajahn Chah, one of the most revered teachers of the Forest Tradition and the teacher of Ajahn Sumedho and other Western monks, incorporated both the coenobitic and the mendicant practice. He spent many years wandering and then lived in community. The present Theravada communities do likewise. Ajahn Chah felt that living in community was a journey that taught everything. We all agreed that living in community provided a great environment for self-knowledge. Not for nothing does Saint Benedict refer to the monastery as a “workshop.” We explored the mixture of customs in our various communities regarding enclosure and interaction with people. Generally speaking, the women’s communities in our interreligious dialogue commission are more enclosed.

The experience of Mucknell community shows how important it is for a core group of monks/nuns to have a support group, either living alongside them or nearby. Amaravati has a highly developed system of lay support, a system that goes back to the time of the Buddha. People who do not feel called to follow the monastic way of life can gain merit by supporting it. For example, today’s meal was prepared by the “Tuesday group,” women who offer their support to the monastic community by preparing and serving the meal every Tuesday.  Oblates spoke of how they desired to, and actually did, contribute in various ways to the life of their monastery. One concrete and immediate example was the fact that two of the oblates brought monks/nuns to this meeting.

Ajahn Amaro described an interesting way of being a temporary monk that is practised in the Theravada tradition. People can commit to a day every quarter moon during which they live as “eight-precept-monks” or nuns, practising celibacy, dressing simply, eating only one meal, living in the monastery from early morning to late at night, giving up things that might normally be part of their lives (for example, cosmetics, smoking, drinking alcohol), and strictly observing the monastic rules. Some people make this a regular part of their spiritual practice. The Anglican monastic communities of Malling and Mucknell offer a similar experience to “alongsiders,” specifying a maximum and minimum period of time that they may stay in the monastery. It was noted that Buddhists do not make perpetual life vows, unlike most Christian monastics.

This subject led to some interesting sharing on how some lay communities or oblate groups that had first developed within monastic communities later split off and formed their own independent community, as happened at Worth Abbey. A similar development took place with Buddhist “Upassika” groups, which became separate and self-governing and self-teaching. We also spoke of the development of forms of “new monasticism” in Christianity and Buddhism. In both cases lay people, including those who are married, think and speak of themselves as monks and nuns. Ajahn Chah is said to have commented wryly on those who “think like monks when they are lay people and then think like lay people when they become monks.” The phenomenon of lay people finding inspiration through monastic life and practice and later forming their own communities now appears to be very widespread.

Ajahn Amaro reminded us of other modern and more questionable developments, such as the increased number of national temples for the different schools of Buddhism and similar exclusive trends within various Christian churches. In the face of these developments, we need to remember the Buddha’s description of monastic life as “the fourth Heavenly Messenger.” The three other heavenly messengers who teach us the truth about life are poverty, disease and death. It should also be remembered that both the Buddha and Saint Benedict were monks.

Throughout our meeting we kept returning to the question Ajahn Amaro had put before us: Patience? How can we (monastics) still be in this increasingly impatient world? The discussion moved around the phrases “be still” and “still be” and produced some thoughtful and memorable comments: