The Broken Buddha

[Adiccavamso]

I don't think a summary would be very useful since it's the wealth of detail the author uses to support his argument that is interesting. Basically, he thinks that Theravada might not have been the best of the pre-Mahayana sects, but it was the only one that survived, largely because of its transmission to Sri Lanka. It tends to concentrate on suffering and gloom (negativity rather than positivity) and its conservative nature has resulted in a school obsessed with following rules and maintaining non-Buddhist cultural traditions at the expense of the real spirit and intent of the Buddha's words.

He thinks that the Theravadin monk's high status and pampering by lay people tends to produce an indolent and self-obsessed Sangha, and he bemoans the fact that Western fundamentalists such as Thanissaro tend to be against change and development rather than for it. Form over substance is the way he sees Theravada, going right back to Buddhaghosa and the early commentaries. I haven't read the final sections yet, but he seems to be calling for a new kind of Buddhism that is more positive, engaged, and willing to change when necessary. He doesn't mention Than Buddhadasa, which is strange since he was a prominent Theravadin reformer.

Agree..I thought too as soon as I' finished it that he hadn't mentioned Buddhadasa who, it seems to me, strove to tackle many of the criticisms raiused by this author. I think he makes many tvelling points, but they are sometimes overstated. His criticism of paticcasamutpada is misplaced, I believe, or perhaps he hasn't grasped that's it's a continuum that can go backwards as well as forwards.

[Adiccavamso]

I don't think a summary would be very useful since it's the wealth of detail the author uses to support his argument that is interesting. Basically, he thinks that Theravada might not have been the best of the pre-Mahayana sects, but it was the only one that survived, largely because of its transmission to Sri Lanka. It tends to concentrate on suffering and gloom (negativity rather than positivity) and its conservative nature has resulted in a school obsessed with following rules and maintaining non-Buddhist cultural traditions at the expense of the real spirit and intent of the Buddha's words.

He thinks that the Theravadin monk's high status and pampering by lay people tends to produce an indolent and self-obsessed Sangha, and he bemoans the fact that Western fundamentalists such as Thanissaro tend to be against change and development rather than for it. Form over substance is the way he sees Theravada, going right back to Buddhaghosa and the early commentaries. I haven't read the final sections yet, but he seems to be calling for a new kind of Buddhism that is more positive, engaged, and willing to change when necessary. He doesn't mention Than Buddhadasa, which is strange since he was a prominent Theravadin reformer.

It seems very reasonable to suggest that Thai Theravada Buddhsim is an orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy...a point which Peter Jackson makes in regard to a moribund sangha closely tied to the state. I agree very much with the above comment that it's odd that no mention is made of Buddhadasa who strove to deal with many of the failings mentioned in the booklet. It's a striking omission for someone who was a monk here.

[fabianfred]

He makes some very good points and in general I agree with his book.

Once a monk reaches the state of arahant he drop the dhamma and vinaya, which were a raft to help him across the river to nibbana. Unable to do wrong he would probably keep the vinaya rules which he knew were good and ignore the silly ritualised ones, paying no attention to the ignorant who would seek to find fault. A Sotapanna would be in a similar position, one of safety from doing evil which would result in falling to the lower realms, but without the extra knowledge and wisdom of the arahant who has 'done all that needs to be done'.

Perhaps the arahants at the first council were unable to decide which rules to keep and which to leave, because they were already above all that nonsense, and having wisdom that the vast majority of monks do not, would not easily be able to put themselves back in the shoes of those still struggling with the basics.

The Patimokha says that it is an offence for a monk to make physical contact with a female, with lustful intent..... but nowadays ALL such contact is considered wrong, by the laity, who have probably never read the monks rules of training anyway.

I will be ordaining as a monk on the 21st of this month after spending two months as a novice....and intend to strictly keep the rules I consider important....as for the silly ritualised ones....we shall have to wait and see.

Edited July 9, 2010 by fabianfred

[mohinga]

This 66-page PDF book on what's been wrong with Theravada since the beginning makes very interesting reading and much of it pertains to Thailand. The Broken Buddha was written by S. Dhammika, an Australian who spent 25 years as a Theravadin monk.

Contrary to the implication that the Venerable "... spent 25 years as a Theravadin monk.", it seems that he is still in robes, and blogging : http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/

I have downloaded the pdf; but not yet read it. Maybe some interesting observations there... but I have to be in the mood for interesting observations.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mohinga

[Xangsamhua]

This 66-page PDF book on what's been wrong with Theravada since the beginning makes very interesting reading and much of it pertains to Thailand. The Broken Buddha was written by S. Dhammika, an Australian who spent 25 years as a Theravadin monk.

Contrary to the implication that the Venerable "... spent 25 years as a Theravadin monk.", it seems that he is still in robes, and blogging : http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/

I have downloaded the pdf; but not yet read it. Maybe some interesting observations there... but I have to be in the mood for interesting observations.

On p.3 of The Broken Buddha, Ven. Dhammika says "...it is time to part company [with Theravada]. I must walk another path." And that path has taken him to the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore, where he is Spiritual Advisor. But how does a monk "part company" with Theravada? Aren't all monks part of a lineage and/or national Sangha, from which they derive legitimacy? The Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society sounds like a Theravada organization and, hence, part of the Theravada Sangha of Singapore. If so, then Ven. Dhammika hasn't parted company, has he?

[Brucenkhamen]

On p.3 of The Broken Buddha, Ven. Dhammika says "...it is time to part company [with Theravada]. I must walk another path." And that path has taken him to the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore, where he is Spiritual Advisor. But how does a monk "part company" with Theravada? Aren't all monks part of a lineage and/or national Sangha, from which they derive legitimacy? The Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society sounds like a Theravada organization and, hence, part of the Theravada Sangha of Singapore. If so, then Ven. Dhammika hasn't parted company, has he?

A monk parts company from Theravada by disrobing at the very least, which is obviously not the case looking at the front page of their website.

[rockyysdt]

A monk parts company from Theravada by disrobing at the very least, which is obviously not the case looking at the front page of their website.

Is there a ceremony involved when one disrobes?

Is this event considered humiliating or viewed with great disappointment?

[Xangsamhua]

I read the whole thing, including the idealistic and possibly naive recommendations in the last dozen pages. I think its up to Theravadins, not to me, to comment on the validity or otherwise of the booklet, but if what he says is valid about

• the obsessive fastidiousness over the Vinaya
• the casuistry with which monastic precepts are subverted
• the self-indulgence and self-promotion of the clergy
• the institutionalized callousness of the monks at all levels
• the blatant violation of precepts re handling of money
• the grotesque and perverted interest in putrefaction, morbidity, etc
• the general negativity of approach
• the inability to produce more than a handful of inspiring teachers
• the hostility to the arts and the aesthetic dimension
• the venal encouragement given to superstition, magic, mass-produced amulets, etc
• the absolute lack of interest in compassion,
• and the dismissive rationalization of compassionate outreach

then the situation in places like Thailand, Sri Lanka and Burma is worse than I thought, and I thought it was bad, but only to the extent that human beings generally fail to live up to ideals. If Ven. Dhammika is not grossly exaggerating, then not only is the Dhamma not being taught and observed in these countries, it is being systematically perverted, perhaps beyond the point of redemption.

The relatively apathetic response of well-informed members of this forum suggests that Dhammika has, indeed, got it wrong. If that is the case then I would like to know where I can read a well-informed critique of his claims.

A couple of people have asked why he does not refer to the criticisms of Buddhadasa, but why should he? If Buddhadasa was saying similar things some time ago and nothing has changed, what is the point of bringing him up? Out of interest I had another look at Keys to Natural Truth, the only book I have by Buddhadasa, but could find nothing that suggested a critique of the monastic sangha in Thailand, just bland statements about the sangha being the assembly of monks, comprising four levels (stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners and arahants (p. 21). (I didn't finish the book, as it didn't appeal to me. Comments like the one about arahants only laughing when they laugh at compounded things, singing is really just like weeping, and "It has been calculated that a person has to be at least 15% mad in order to overcome his sense of shame and get up and dance" (p. 52) suggested to me that his reputation as a thinker is somewhat overrated. But that's all I've read other than Kamala Tiyavanich's hagiographic account of his life in Sons of the Buddha.)

In a little book of sermons one wouldn't expect to find anything too radical. However, in the long sermon on dhamma language and everyday language, Buddhadasa discusses: Buddha, dhamma, sangha, religion, work, sublime life, nibbana, path and fruit, Mara, world, birth, death, life, person, God, woeful states, heaven ambrosia, emptiness, stopping, light , darkness, kamma, refuge, heart of Buddhism, eating, sleeping, awake, play, angel, female and male, marriage, father and mother, friend, enemy, putridness, laughter, singing, dancing, blindness, walking nowhere and silence - an extensive list indeed, but does not include any reference to the word which was the reason for the Buddha's mission, a word which many in the West associate intimately with Buddhism, and that is "compassion". Nor is it discussed under any of the other headings. This would suggest that compassion in any other than an abstract, dispassionate form was not central to Buddhadasa's focus, in a sermon in which he comments on nearly every other concept of interest to Buddhists, and this would support Dhammika's contention that compassion is really of peripheral if any interest to Theravada.

Maybe Dhammika's contentions about compassion can be easily refuted by Theravadins, and I have heard these refutations, but if the Good Samaritan test were applied, how many Theravada monastics and how many Theravada laypeople would pass. I think Dhammika implies, from his experience, that more laypeople would do so than monks. But then, maybe the Good Samaritan was guilty of wrong view and wrong action in stopping to help. We all know where being a Good Samaritan can land you.

I'm sure that Dhammika has just compiled a collection of the worst things he's seen and, perhaps, his views on legalism vs compassion reflect his Christian background, in which pharisaism and hypocrisy are seen as seriously harmful, at least in the synoptic gospels. However, there's enough in the booklet that warrants a comprehensive refutation if it seriously distorts Theravada. Where can I find that refutation or has Dhammika's cry from the heart just been ignored?

[fabianfred]

I there is more correct in his work than incorrect.... a sad state of affairs....but inevitable since we are over half-way to the end (5000 years) of this Buddhas period and on the slippery slope down.

Luang Por Jaran predicted that Buddhism would disappear from Thailand, and maybe several Asian countries, within the next 200 years ad find new life in the West. As the Buddha predicted that 'the sun will rise in the West and set in the East' or something similar.

I think the great interest in Vipassana in Thailand nowadays is encouraging, but find the statements about there not being any more Arahants to be found...or even Sotapannas...to be a load of nonsense.

The buddha said that as long as there is the teaching and practice of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, there will be Sotapannas....and since these inevitably become Arahants within at most seven lives, there must also be Arahants.

[khaowong1]

I read S. Dhammika's critique and felt it to be spot-on. I recall the day whe I first came to Thailand to Study Abhidhamma with Khun Sujin and was "young, dumb, and full of idealism" about the Dhamma in a place where it's been for such a long time.

Those illusions were destroyed after not-so-long there.

Thankfully.

It is sad to see such a beautiful system corrupted, but that is par for the course in the Kali Yuga, no?

Tibetan Buddhism is just as corrupt, though thankfully much of the transmission outside of Tibet is beginning to shed a lot of the ridiculousness that accrued to the Vajrayana over time.

What is sadder is to know that the Theravada might well soon die, as there are no new sources of inspiration, and it is not taking seed in the West--the only place it could survive.

I feel like it's not taking seed in the west for a couple of reasons. 1. There's no competant english speaking monks to forward the message, most monks in the U.S. don't even speak English. 2. Those that do speak English aren't Americans and don't speak the lingo of Americans. Americans want to know about Buddhism, but they don't want to be told, they have to practice meditation for 20 years to learn about it. Which is just about all the Thai temple is the U.S. teach. The Thai Sangha needs to teach their monks how to teach Buddhism to English speaking people if they want to help spread the word. I don't know if I'm being clear here or not.

[khaowong1]

"I think this could be why..

avijja [avijjaa]: Unawareness; ignorance; obscured awareness; delusion about the nature of the mind."

Is there the impression that the Western mind is, in some fashion, not ready or conducive to understanding of dhamma? I'd think that we're good to go on that, but have some misgivings about how alien to us the direct support of a monastic community is, at least in the Theravadin way.

You might have a point here. Here's the main problem I see in the U.S., when a Thai monk there is asked, what did the Buddha teach, he answers something like this... He taught that all things are born, grow up, get old, get sick and die. Then some American looks at the monk like he's from another world and says, what's new about that? Everyone knows that. The Thai Sangha needs to have a class on How to be a Buddhist minister to English speaking countries. The monks in those English speaking countries have to be able to expound on much more than, Annica, Dukkha, Annata. Some American or Brit, who is a vice president of some large corp., who makes a very substantial salery, has a great house, three new cars, a great wife, two wonderful kids, is not going to believe he's suffering in any way shape or form.

[fabianfred]

I read S. Dhammika's critique and felt it to be spot-on. I recall the day whe I first came to Thailand to Study Abhidhamma with Khun Sujin and was "young, dumb, and full of idealism" about the Dhamma in a place where it's been for such a long time.

Those illusions were destroyed after not-so-long there.

Thankfully.

It is sad to see such a beautiful system corrupted, but that is par for the course in the Kali Yuga, no?

Tibetan Buddhism is just as corrupt, though thankfully much of the transmission outside of Tibet is beginning to shed a lot of the ridiculousness that accrued to the Vajrayana over time.

What is sadder is to know that the Theravada might well soon die, as there are no new sources of inspiration, and it is not taking seed in the West--the only place it could survive.

I feel like it's not taking seed in the west for a couple of reasons. 1. There's no competant english speaking monks to forward the message, most monks in the U.S. don't even speak English. 2. Those that do speak English aren't Americans and don't speak the lingo of Americans. Americans want to know about Buddhism, but they don't want to be told, they have to practice meditation for 20 years to learn about it. Which is just about all the Thai temple is the U.S. teach. The Thai Sangha needs to teach their monks how to teach Buddhism to English speaking people if they want to help spread the word. I don't know if I'm being clear here or not.

Westerners and Americans in particular seem to be in a hurry for everything. They want Nirvana the easy way. An idiots guide. To say they need to practice for a long time is only the truth, but unacceptible to this generation, adddicted to instant pleasures, instant noodles, instant enlightenment......

No such animal..... only the good old hard way.

[fabianfred]

"I think this could be why..

avijja [avijjaa]: Unawareness; ignorance; obscured awareness; delusion about the nature of the mind."

Is there the impression that the Western mind is, in some fashion, not ready or conducive to understanding of dhamma? I'd think that we're good to go on that, but have some misgivings about how alien to us the direct support of a monastic community is, at least in the Theravadin way.

You might have a point here. Here's the main problem I see in the U.S., when a Thai monk there is asked, what did the Buddha teach, he answers something like this... He taught that all things are born, grow up, get old, get sick and die. Then some American looks at the monk like he's from another world and says, what's new about that? Everyone knows that. The Thai Sangha needs to have a class on How to be a Buddhist minister to English speaking countries. The monks in those English speaking countries have to be able to expound on much more than, Annica, Dukkha, Annata. Some American or Brit, who is a vice president of some large corp., who makes a very substantial salery, has a great house, three new cars, a great wife, two wonderful kids, is not going to believe he's suffering in any way shape or form.

It doesn't even work here in Thailand when they are teaching a Thai audience...who should know what he is talking about from the basics they learned in school.

Too many pali quotes and big names.

Westerners need it wrapped differently.

Explain the meaning of suffering...and anyway the three characteristics of compounded existence is a bit deep to start off with.

[mizzi39]

I read this book yesterday. I am glad that the author was able to get this off of his chest. It seems like these issues had been slowly building up and then suppressed for the past 25 years. Although negative, the book was very informative. I was not aware that "compassion" was not prioritized in Theravada. He makes some good points as to why Theravada is the least popular form of Buddhism in the west.

Most westerners look to Buddism as a philosophy/psychotherapy more than religious practice, so I don't see how Theravada would fit. I grew up 10 miles from the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies which was co-founded by Jack Kornfield. Even though he is a Theravada Buddhist the center focuses on all schools of Buddhism plus the Vedanta, and Krishnamurti teachings, bringing Buddhism into modern times which is where it should be.

[Xangsamhua]

Most westerners look to Buddism as a philosophy/psychotherapy more than religious practice, so I don't see how Theravada would fit. I grew up 10 miles from the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies which was co-founded by Jack Kornfield. Even though he is a Theravada Buddhist the center focuses on all schools of Buddhism plus the Vedanta, and Krishnamurti teachings, bringing Buddhism into modern times which is where it should be.

I'm reading Jack Kornfield's The Wise Heart at the moment. Although he comes out of a Theravada background he doesn't sound like a cut and dried Theravadin to me. He cites various Tibetan and Mahayana sources, refers to Buddha-nature as a given on a number of occasions (in contrast to Thanissaro Bikkhu, another American out of Wat Nong Pa Pong, who says that "if you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches"), and talks about "storehouse consciousness" in Mahayana terms. These are examples that come to me off the top of my head.

It looks to me like many Western Buddhist teachers (e.g at the Barre Center and Spirit Rock) are drawing on wider sources than just Theravada or Mahayana or Vajrayana. They can see that each of the major Eastern traditions has something to offer and so are really not interested in maintaining "denominational" boundaries that exclude those who are not "orthodox" (or orthopraxic as the case may be). They've seen enough of that in Christianity. Maybe others feel more comfortable in restricting themselves to what appears to follow the ancient texts closely, but people like Jack Kornfield, from what I've seen of his teaching, seem to have moved well on from that.

[phetaroi]

Westerners and Americans in particular seem to be in a hurry for everything. They want Nirvana the easy way. An idiots guide. To say they need to practice for a long time is only the truth, but unacceptible to this generation, adddicted to instant pleasures, instant noodles, instant enlightenment......

No such animal..... only the good old hard way.

As opposed to in Thailand where very little changes over very long periods of time -- corruption, the military's control of the government, and so forth?

[Joop50]

Indeed religions are dying, the forces of religions were not based in teaching the way to enlightenment. (Anyone can give a comment on what their force was and is)

People's intellect rises and internet has opened the world for the most of us.

There is a big movement, spread over the world, about non-dualism.

It's what is called the direct path such as also mentioned in the Buddhist Dzogchen way of meditation.

Western teachers are/were Robert Adams, "Sailor" Bob Adamson, Adiashanti and many more.

Well you can google if you like. My English is not extremely good, hope you can read through that.

[christiaan]

Westerners and Americans in particular seem to be in a hurry for everything. They want Nirvana the easy way. An idiots guide. To say they need to practice for a long time is only the truth, but unacceptible to this generation, adddicted to instant pleasures, instant noodles, instant enlightenment......

No such animal..... only the good old hard way.

As opposed to in Thailand where very little changes over very long periods of time -- corruption, the military's control of the government, and so forth?

It is not my generalising experience Mainland Europeans are in a hurry for everything. Maybe the people interested in Buddhism do have such a 'hurry' attitude? If so it could tell how Buddhism is presented to this people in the first place. I think for interested people it actually is a kind of slow 'Hype' Just look at the Baghwan hype we had. A fast accelaring hype and for many people not contributing to choose for the way of Buddhism.

I did choose my road about 30 years ago and I worked and work hard going this road. At that time no websites to browse. I do meet people working and studying like me on a regular base in my countrry and I am part of an active group meeting eachother every month. I am no traditional Buddhist and will never be one. It might be clear now that I think keeping alive a religion that is 2500 years old now exactly as it is, is an anachronisme. Buddhisme already did transform but not everybody is aware of this.

Buddhism is 2500 years old. After 25 centuries about 6% of the worldpopulation is Buddhist. Buddhisme fragmented to all kind of 'schools' and 'interpretations'. as happened with institutionalised Christianity. When we would remove all Buddhists from this 6% number that are 'Buddhists' becos they are born into this culture how much Buddhists living and studying Buddhism with awareness will there have been left?. I would not be surprised it will go down under 2%.

I have been to Thailand several times, and some other Asian countries, but my experiences in Thailand, the way Buddhism here is presented draw my attention to questions. Then, with this experiences and , as fabianfred suggested, 'just browsing websites' I actually come to the same kind of observations as S. Dhammika seems to do in Broken Buddha (!)

When I came to some conclusions out of my own study and observations I was not aware how many other people, also Buddhist monks, in fact also draw the same or same kind of conclusions. I became more aware of this in the last week, by just browsing websites, websites like this forum.

I think western people become interested in Buddhism becos they started to have questions about the culture they grew up in. Probably most of the western people do sympathise with Buddhism since it is welknown to be a peacefull religion.

I have no problems with Buddhism being a part of the world we live in, I have no problems with people choosing to become and be a Buddhist or even Bhuddist monk when they do so. I would say: this is all Karma. But I do have problems when a religion, any religion, by the people attached to this religion, pretends to be the solution for the problems in the world. No religion in the world is. When Buddhists try to tell this world would be a better place to be, when you are there for some reason anyhow, - they actually do not, Buddhist in fact tell: this world is the place you should prevent to be born in - when all people would be(come) Buddhists, they infact act the same as many other religions and beliefs.

Buddhisme was new, 2500 years ago. Buddhisme could be new when it would die everyday and reborn at the same time in actuallity, but as soon when humans get their hands on it, as with any other religion or belief, we enter a situation of kilesa.