e n l i g h t e n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s
Human beings cannot exist in a vacuum. They exist in dependent relationship with other human beings. Life as a human beings starts well before birth as contact with human beings. Humans feed on other humans physically and emotionally: they are accepted as member to an intimate circle of other human beings. Absolute dependency on fellow beings is longer than in any animal.
Support from human beings is very wide ranging and continues throughout life. Initially, all material needs are met by others, usually dominantly by the parents, but also values, attitudes, skills and preferences are almost entirely acquired from other people. Children who do not learn to speak by imitating speech from others until about age twelve never learn to speak. Motor skills such as walking and the full range of social skills are obtained through others’ example and with others’ help.
Most importantly, though, emotional and spiritual sanity are deeply rooted in support from others. Infants who are fed, cleaned, clothed and guarded from danger but not cuddled with and talked to, simply die. Children’s dominant emotional need is for many years simply love. They will do anything and everything to obtain it and need be go self-destructive, insane or even die in the process.
This pattern continues throughout life in different, evolving forms. The formation of different kinds of friendships, hierarchical, intimate or family relationships all need to be mastered to a substantial degree in order to live a reasonably happy and successful life. Many studies show that physical health and the ability to cope with stress is directly related to the size and closeness of the social network a person has been able to cultivate.
“Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe.” John Milton
“He makes no friend, who never made a foe.” Alfred Tennyson
Enemies are an unpleasant subject to talk about. Yet the term ‘ally’ implies in many usages – especially in it’s most common military usage – that different groups form a special kind of friendship in order to deal with one or more enemies. No enemies – no allies. In this way, enemies become a catalyst for friendships that are useful well beyond the contact with the hostile force. Courage, reliability, creativity, initiative, moral firmness, wisdom and other qualities have all been tried and tested by the head wind of the combat situation and therefore these contacts exceed fair-weather friendships in closeness and dependability.
Ultimately, the greatest enemy to beings is inside themselves, namely, the impulse to follow greed, hatred and delusion. This trite sounding insight implies that other people can harm a spiritually mature person samsarically only in a very limited way. The inward perspective focuses on a finding a response to hostility that does not utilize aversion (‘hatred’) for conflict resolution; it seeks conflict resolution which does not perpetuate unfriendly relationships.
The Buddha does not advocate a way of thinking that rights or relativizes wrongs. Dissecting a mass murderer’s poor childhood or complex group structure analysis are not part of dealing with difficult people in the Buddhist scheme of things. Also, the Buddha does not typically recommend closing one’s eyes to evil. ‘Not judging anybody’ as is common program of contemporary spiritual teachers, is not part of Buddhism. Not judging, i.e. assessing experiences one has is simply impossible – the very act of perception implies it. And judging a person or situation correctly is wisdom; judgment of the Buddha’s teaching gives the student the faith to pursue the path. It is, of course, also part of wisdom to know how much one can trust one’s assessment and to hold it with appropriate lightness (M 95 [1]; A 3.65).
On the whole, the Buddha recommends a measured common sense approach to dealing with enemies. Bad associates are to be avoided (M 2), similar to wild elephants or bulls (anger) or stubble fields (annoyance)[2]. Taking leave of a teacher or other senior monks requires asking forgiveness as part of monastic protocol. Difficulties and crises due to disrespect between student and teacher also have asking forgiveness and granting leave protocols (Mv 1). The Buddha gives numerous ways to rid oneself of grudges, including such down to earth approaches as considering that kamma will take care of what that person did.
There are exceptions to this. The Buddha recommends strong action towards those who are prone to anger and making of strife in the group. One is recommended in unequivocal terms not to have anything to do with those who display anger, apparently somewhat independent of their seniority, intention or ultimate purity (A 3.27). The Buddha recommends chasing makers of strife them away by united community, it seems, without otherwise mandatory procedure (A 8.10[3]). The cost for practice opportunity in communities is too high as anger generates fear and subtle forms of reprisal. People become defensive and intensively focused outward, when the entire purpose for living in a spiritual community is to provide an outwardly safe place for inward focus. The harsh contradiction between the monastic mission and display of anger inevitable causes lay people, monastics and would be monastics to lose faith. As a character trait, the display of anger is often not readily remediable by explanation or admonition. If it should be, than often through shock therapy, i.e. categorical exclusion from the group (A 6.54).
In most cases of settling issues the Buddha emphasizes fair procedure, though. In non-confrontational situations, this means admonishing a monk after making sure that one has optimized receptivity in the offender by choosing a good time. That would include consideration that he is not busy at the time and also that he is either alone or at least not in a public situation that is likely to generate defensiveness. The admonishing monk has to ask permission to admonish. Failing to do so incurs a small transgression. The other monk has to grant this permission; failing to do so also incurs a small transgression. This protocol tries to assure a cordial atmosphere but it is not only protocol. The receiving monk could, for example, also request another time or setting. Next, the admonishing monk is required to stick to the facts, which also implies not dramatizing them. This measure, too, enhances credibility and thereby receptivity. His presentation should be outcome-oriented (attha-samhita), i.e. the development of wholesome qualities in the offending monk should be more important than victory or venting of emotions. This may often imply very careful progression, the gradual winning of trust, and sometimes the sacrifice of outright victory or parts of the issue. The Buddha praises taking substantial troubles that may result from the other person being hurt and vindictive, to accomplish this purpose (M 103). But if the offending monk is not likely to respond or a complete change is beyond them, it is often considered better to take a loss and overlook the issue (M 103, M 65). As far as the tone and format of the admonitions is concerned, the Buddha urges to always come from a friendship type mental set (metta cittena), rather than aversion, and – aware that this point needs to be made separately J – that one should speak gently (all these points at A 5.167, A 10.44, D 33.5).
If the issue is serious and can not be resolved in such a way, a meeting of the entire local monastic community needs to be convened (e.g. Cv 1). Everybody needs to attend or – if this is really impossible – send the consent to the decision made. The offending monk is presented with the accusation – again under the above stipulations – and can explain his positions but not prevaricate or remain silent (P 12). The group has to come to a unanimous decision – everybody independent of seniority – has a veto right. Than a motion and three formal announcements seal the decision, usually a formal way of temporarily stripping the offending monk (typically implying that he does not accept his fault) of privileges due to seniority and excluding him from the group.
All Buddhist solutions are non-violent. Non-violence in a Buddhist sense means never using physical violence, including arrest. Interrogation, isolation from the group, occasionally intimidation, rarely banning somebody (Sg 13), are considered the primary ways of dealing with difficult monks, nuns or lay people (A 8.88). Even if temporary isolation is chosen as an almost last resort (before dismissal), a monastic under such circumstances can never be deprived of requisites such as food, robes, shelter or the opportunity to practice meditation. Also hard labor as punishment, is not part of the Vinaya catalogue of corrective measures. In other words, the punishment of choice is a form of social isolation which would not much affect negatively a pure monk or nun’s ability who is accused mistakenly, and the opportunity to reflect is always preserved.
While the practical ways of dealing with enemies in Buddhism are commonsensical maturity, the spiritual truths about these unpleasant relationships are complex. Distorting bias may cloud perception, though it may also not: there is a lot more evil everywhere in the world than most people would believe. Often the denial of this fact creates as many or more problems than the evil act itself.
In rape cases in public setting in which the public did not come to help or even protest the violation, the victims suffer sometimes more from the betrayal of the public than the rape itself[4]. Women and children abused in pretty looking families or disciples abused by esteemed teachers suffer a lot extra from the fact that the truth of the abuse is so hard to accept. The damage from lack of solidarity is so traumatic because human beings normally assume a kind of commonality of values among all members of the species that protects them from the worst transgressions, so long as others know about the transgressions. Institutions such as the police or the justice system symbolize these perceptions. If there were no such perceptions, there would be no such institutions. Quality of life is severely impaired in societies where these institutions’ reputation is tarnished because of corruption, abuse or incompetence. Once this safety-assumption is removed, everything becomes possible everywhere; the effect is similar to living in an out-of-control war zone or in a morally deteriorated ghetto. Fear, suspicion, disappointment become the emotional baseline with their high psychosomatic and spiritual cost. The most dangerous effect is that people consciously decide to retaliate in equal ways and/or that they have nothing to lose or gain.
Influence from past lives or unseen beings is typically impossible to assess but probable. There are many reports of rivalries and hostilities between people or parties that perpetuate over life-spans, similar to family feuds. Somewhat confusingly, there are also cases of attracting hostility due to previous action, though not necessarily with the same person. Just as somebody with a weak constitution due to malnutrition may contract random diseases that are around, unrelated to the cause or specifics of the malnutrition, somebody may have created a somewhat repulsive personality with previous actions that attracts, though not justifies, hostilities.
Then there are possible influences from other, unseen realms. Psychics of various persuasions and cultures report similar experiences of witnessing beings (‘ghosts’) who feed on hostility and therefore encourage it. Canonically, encouragement of hostilities by non-human beings is reported to provoke a reaction in the provoked party (M 50). When and when not such things are taking place or to which degree they are responsible for conflict is poorly quantified in these accounts, but the consistency of the reports ads a helpful caution to the too quick, commonsensical and righteous an assignment of guilt, so typical for aversion. Furthermore, the tales of perpetuated hostilities over many lives help disengaging from conflict through the simple warning that this may conduce to more contact with the detested person in a future life.
The influence of evil on this life is also hard to assess. Much damage in human beings is due to ‘enemy action.’ From physical or emotional abuse to assault, rape, betrayal of friendship and the full range of criminal activity, serious damage such posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, loss of the ability to trust and many, if not all kinds of other psychological disorders may have their root in these experiences. In other words, the effect of enemies may be great and should not be belittled. At the same time, it is impossible to change or control all other beings and the danger of being drawn into unwholesome states of minds in dealing with injustice is great, often practically impossible to avoid. This unwholesome energy, though, is what perpetuates many of these hostilities and, worse, the attachment towards and rebirth into realms where these kinds of conflicts exist.
For these reasons, it is spiritually best to focus on the inadequacy of the entire samsaric structure rather than individual failings: “If you don’t like it, don’t come here.” Contemplations such as the ‘disenchantment with the entire world’ [5] address the real and dangerous problems of enemies in a categorical way and provide a sense of serenity and detachment that insulates from being hurt and harmed. – Small booby prize for those who keep their cool under attack: In future lives they will be beautiful (M 135).
A bigger prize may be the friendships formed during difficult stretches. Some people may also be lost as friends during such periods if one had hoped to depend on them if they let one down, or their help is mere lip service, them staying all too prudently out of the firing line. Sixty years after the end of WW II, the Italian military is still the cause for jokes and general amusement for it’s avoidance of combat [6]. Similarly, those who back off or fail to take a stand in a conflict situation involving a friend may permanently lose part of that friendship. Not rarely, facts are subordinate to emotion in such situations, in other words, while not all facts may be known and not all alternatives exhausted, a courageous stand is required by the friendship at the time of such crises – lest otherwise, lessons may be learned that can not easily be undone.
This principle, by the way, holds true not only for friendships but any emergency situation or gross mistreatment of anybody – women screaming at night, men beaten up by gangs, molested migrants or children yelled at or mistreated. All these cases require not prudent diplomacy but an outcry and massive tangible action, quite possible at considerable risk and cost for the witness. As in any worldly setting, these risks are also by the Buddha required from his disciples (A 5.166). Anything else is close to being an accessory or principal to a crime and may lead to deservedly nightmarish memories[7], occasionally even legal proceedings. In recent history, particularly the persecution of Jewish people and other minorities in Nazi Germany has shown that cowardice in these cases cannot only lead to nightmarish memories but entire nightmarish worlds[8].
Given the amount of tragedy in the world, it may justly be asked where to draw the line. To view the world as perception is helpful in this case. If one can expect to be perceived or counted as bystander, as somebody who knew and could have done something on a perceived individual level, it is necessary to intervene in some direct or indirect way. What does not come to one’s attention, can not be considered responsibility. Also it is going to far to blame people who have distant knowledge of an unfortunate situation for not becoming active. It is not the responsibility of CNN-watching Norwegians if Africans starve or massacre each other as they usually do. What comes within sight or ear-shot requires a response, just like a personal greeting, invitation or offering requires a response, but not one received as spam. The Buddha responded, in spite of his psychic abilities, with legislation only to those misbehaviors of monks that were brought to his attention by other monks, nuns [9], lay people or the transgressing monks themselves[10]. While the Buddha could have uncovered and regulated a lot more misdeeds, this procedure set a standard that is in effect until today.
The suggestions for intervention given here are merely guidelines and in that they have plenty of grey areas. The most important distinction from the point of Dhamma is that between wholesome and unwholesome. ‘Wholesome’ is defined as not harming either oneself or another, especially kammically, ‘unwholesome’ in the opposite way (M 88). In complex hostility cases, both aggressive intervention and passive and/or callous cowardice may be unwholesome, ignoring the suffering of others as well as becoming lost in trying to right the world. Ultimately, it is here the spiritual sensitivity honed in meditation practice that is the best, though not necessarily unfailing, guide[11].
“God defend me from my friends; from my enemies I can defend myself.” Attributed to Lord Acton
Studies show that the number of contacts a human being can maintain (‘keep in touch with’) is limited to about 150 people. Some groups among the Christian Amish who live according to century-old customs and do many things, such as eating, communally, let their communities grow until they reach about a 150 people and then divide them, the idea being that in such communities everybody can know each other reasonably well.
There is a typical pattern to these maximally 150 people that form human beings associations. The most intimate circle consists of three to five people with whom mutual dependence and intimacy is particularly strong. Next comes a group of twelve to twenty people to whom special personal relationships exist. Then usually follow three more circles with more casual contacts; family, jobs (school), hobbies or special interests tend to be typical sources. For unknown reasons the groups tend to increase in size by a factor of three.
One way to classify these highly influential people is into six subgroups of increasing significance, casuals, relations, past blasts, buddies, recognitions and allies.
1. Casuals. The most distant group involves people that one would recognize in the street and greet but have little further contact with. The woman in the bakery or newspaper kiosk where one does one’s daily shopping, most neighbors, a doctor, teacher and many fellow students that one studied with would fall into this group. These people are important in suggesting a commonality of perception that provides a sanity baseline. Mutual social conventions communicate warmth and safety, from the way speech, body language and manners are used to the judgment of a multitude of everyday events like the weather, sports or politics. Common ground and the affection validate a person’s existence in society.
People who come to stay in entirely alien cultures often suffer a phenomenon anthropologists call ‘culture shock’ when this base is removed. They may lose their energy, feel depressed, become obsessively home-sick and disoriented. Paranoid people or those with impaired communication skills who are not able to relate and perceive the commonality may become critically isolated and compensate for this in dangerous ways or become suicidal.
Frequent contact with casual acquaintances, a friendly, outgoing personality, considerate good manners and an adequate database of trivia and news cultivate this society. The better these qualities are acquired, the more delightful and supportive the base becomes. A measure of choice can be exercised in choosing these people, especially by choosing a neighborhood; generally speaking, though, these contacts are socially not important enough to require careful selection.
2. Relations. Meant are people with whom one shares a blood-bond but little in common interests beyond that. Most extended family belongs into this group. These people are easy to be with. Even those one has never met, one has heard off. There is a shared pool of references and people known in common. Practically no introduction is needed and there are plenty of things to talk about. Neither social fears nor expectations are typically excessive. Eccentricities are tolerated with ease as they are usually known – with elaborated context – in advance. This group of people is dominant in providing identity, a sense of belonging and economic support from everything that parents do for their children to temporary hospitality and emergency help.
Of all relationships and obligations, these are the people most difficult to escape from. In addition to above mentioned social skills, birth rank, generational and local affiliations, all play a role in relating to this group. Of paramount importance, though, are also passive skills such as not reacting to annoyances or being drawn into feuds which often defy rationality.
Especially in families from middle class up, a smart person, parent or group can deliberately cultivate selected networks within the family for education, business, friendship and many other kinds of support. Often they will be unsurpassed in trustworthiness. Not without reason it is said that three to five thousand families, rather than people, rule the world. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, as well as the leading royal families are famous examples. These clans often have sophisticated business and political strategies and position their children in lucrative marriages to expand the effect. Chinese, Jewish and Italian families have cultivated these forms of collaboration to a high degree especially under Diaspora conditions.
In some contexts – well-known for this are African and Asian families – this system can be severely repressive. Children of unfortunate family constellations may be limited in their educational, professional and partnership choices; their financial assets may be expected to be for free distribution around the family for all sorts of important and unimportant things.
Perhaps remarkably, even if closeness is deliberately cultivated, most family members and even siblings do not share a lot of interests and friends, i.e. they do not have that much in common. For this reason it is generally wise not to put all one’s eggs into the family basket but to cultivate an independent life and set of values, while at the same time meeting all reasonable obligations. All this requires not insubstantial wisdom and tact. Classy families make this skill set part of their childrens’ qualification, all others have to acquire it for themselves by the often painful trial and error that make up the endless family soap operas.
3. ‘Past Blasts.’ A group of people more close than most relations is that of former close friends and sexual partners. These once intimate people with whom one had preferences and events in common remain usually special, even after intentional or incidental separation. On reuniting, an initial question is often how much of what once was is still left. In the case of ex-lovers especially, also disappointments and scars factor in, which may give a gingerly, tentative atmosphere to reunions. The jealous fears of partners to let the other see an ‘ex,’ is one indicator for the potent emotions that can be reawakened by reunions. At the same time, the prime and glory of these relationships is past and much emotion comes from glorifying times gone by in distorted ways. The intimacy typically has melancholic, even paralyzing undertones. To accomplish great things, these relationships are usually worthless. Their main value is in finishing unfinished business. On top of and above previously mentioned social skills – tact maybe the most important of them – fearlessness and honesty are of supreme value in making a success of these kinds of affiliations. Friendships separated in space and time without any deterioration in closeness are not meant here. They may fit into any of the next three categories.
4. ‘Buddies.’ In colloquial language ‘buddies’ are usually referred to as ‘friends.’ They have been given the designation ‘buddies’ here to distinguish them from very close friends. Buddies are easy to deal with because one has chosen them oneself, usually around a common culture or interest. Typically they come from the same age group or generation. Almost everything comes natural with them and in absence of poor social skills or alienation from value systems, the association will be easy, even after long stretches of separation. The main skills to master this kind of association are largely the same as with the ‘casuals,’ the first group in this categorization. Frequency of contact is particularly important and the database of information and contacts has to be worked to distinction to obtain a desirable group-status, for most communication among the members of these groups is essentially an update and check of this information. At the same time, it is necessary not to show competitiveness or divisiveness. In short, one needs to be closely involved and yet detached at the same time. In this respect, they are similar to family relationships.
These relationships are extremely useful in the necessary development of an identity, a sense of being an individual distinct from ancestry and larger society. They form the forums in which one learns discussion in flexible hierarchies and the value and acquisition of expertise. They are also invaluable for making new friends of all kinds, from casual acquaintances and further ‘buddies,’ to close friends, sexual partners and allies. The material support from this group consists mostly of connections for almost everything: jobs, flats, people, insider information etc. etc.
5. ‘Recognitions.’ ‘Recognition’ is here meant to indicate a particularly close friendship, as though one knew a person already. This group of friends could also be called ‘love at first sights’ to depict the closeness of the relationship. Studies have shown that people usually know within minutes or even seconds whether a newly met person will become close, distant or anything in-between. Simple prediction how close a contact would develop was found more decisive than sympathy or things people had in common. Three, six or ten minutes of initial contact made no difference to the reliable prediction (Ramirez, Sunnafrank, 2006).
In general, one would expect that ‘simple prediction’ here refers to an extremely fast hierarchical assessment of whether the person fits dominant conscious and unconscious needs. First of all, a person attracts with his or her appearance, be that beauty or style. Upon attraction, an exclusion game would start: someone with strong ideological bias would dominantly require a target not to be in strong opposition to that interest over anything else, whereas someone with a leaning towards art (‘punk,’ ‘rasta,’ ‘hip hopper’) or a particular relationship style would look for those to exclude who do not fit their preferences in these areas. Typically, people would have several dominant patterns to scan for, from ideological to reminiscence of unpleasant personal experiences. Men judging women would usually value beauty dominantly overriding other interests of the women[12], but for recognition a specific syncing or linking is required, that does not seem to happen a lot more commonly for beautiful than ugly women[13]. If interest remains, various minor assessments of social skills, common interests, experiences, preferences or habits would aid or inhibit ‘recognition.’
Exceptions prove the rule, though, and there are quite a few standard ones. Gifted children, for example, who are ugly are often overlooked by the system which scans for such talent (Cialdini, Influence). Appearance, the first quick scan before any exchange and the conceit with which people believe in this, would indeed appear to create a common barrier to showing other abilities. Similarly, people who are introverted, quiet, or shy will at times be grossly misestimated.
There are also plenty of stereotype stories in which the girl claims she initially disliked her later partner. Women and men tend to have differing sensitivities in several key areas[14]. One well attested one is female difficulty to detect affection from subtle signs. Few heterosexual men would ever insist on having to be told ‘I love you’ frequently. Most women stand unable to get the subtlety as men console or validate each other by talking sports or horsepower. While women’s poor quick scan ability to detect future partners has been attributed to men’s stronger visual orientation, women are also not known for recognizing future partners by their voice, which is typically available at the same time and supposed to be a prime female attractor. More simply explained, this ‘inability’ may be just a byproduct of the instinct to ‘play hard to get,’ intended to increase her value and thus power in the relationship.
What the final truth behind these assertions is, though, is not the issue of the qualification as ‘recognition’ or otherwise. In general, the better somebody is known to intelligent people under different circumstances, the more unlikely they are to be misestimated (A 4.192). Meant is here a natural, unlabored closeness which transcends most obstacles, permitting honesty rivaled only by the best quality family relationships. Speed is a strong factor here as in all recognition of known objects or ‘love at first sight.’
The strength of these relationships is also their weakness. Possessiveness and great expectation tend to accompany especially close relationships in which sexual love is involved. Initial closeness is in such cases less predicative of grandeur than the test of time or ‘loyalty.’ Only too often people find each other and connect easily but that does not necessarily mean that they stick forever. Quite the contrary, these matches frequently end in the worst animosities of all.
Women in particular have widely – by men and women – reported problems with loyalty, partly perhaps due to hormonal fluctuations (‘being emotional’), partly due to expectations beyond all reasonability, as though conditioned by cheesy romance novels with their absurd plots. In addition, women usually favor a submissive, passive approach, wanting to be wooed, anticipated, reciprocated, mind-read according to complex, constantly changing rules and they keep score in ways that seems to justify their reputation for poor mathematical talent. Secretly and/or subconsciously women are extrinsically motivated (money, status, escape from desperate loneliness) far more often and dominantly than desirable. One indicator of this is the above-mentioned playing ‘hard to get,’ which is pure power brokering and would appear to preclude genuine, i.e. honest friendship, whatever subsequent development may suggest. Because of their great interest in intimate contact, women are the most popular partners in intimate relationships from all genders and interests. Women as a statistical group (rather than individuals), though, are undoubtedly the greatest relationship disappointments, even as ‘mere’ friends, just as the street-hustler is at once the most obvious as well as the most frustrating person to buy contraband from, be it sex, love, drugs or trinkets[15].
While this is bad for women as a group – many of the absurd reactions of men can be traced to these kind of experiences – it works out to the advantage of those women who are not like that (“She’s almost like a guy!!”) because it takes very little to be considered ‘great.’
Nowhere is a caveat more in order than this case of recognitions, which deceives so many – if not all – to their peril. Still, this ‘recognition’ type of closeness is extremely useful for many purposes, from teaming up against emotional, material, or spiritual threats to helping others and saving the world, spiritual development being here reserved for the special case of the following group. Especially useful is the ability to identify with another’s different point of view or emotion and the possibility for honest feedback, the most hard to come by reflection of one’s conduct from a benevolent source.
In reality, a lot of these relationships will truly be ‘recognitions,’ that is from a not too distant past life. Especially where there has been a close friendship on the base of preferences that still exist in both partners, this type of experience becomes likely. These preferences can be character traits, ways of talking, behaving or relating but also certain ideas or perceptions about what’s beautiful, strange or funny. Especially mutual, unadulterated affection, i.e. liking and wanting to be with somebody would appear to increase the likelihood of such meetings. It’s not so different from meeting friends or families after many years: The strength of the effect depends on the strength of the previous bond and how much is still left of it.
The Buddha makes the additional point that a reunion in a future life is likely if both have similarly developed faith, virtue, learning, generosity and ‘giving up’ (often, but not always, canonically, explained as generosity) as well as wisdom (A 4.55). Without similarity in these spiritual faculties, people would not likely be in the same realm, though comparative weakness in one quality may be compensated for by strength in another (A 10.75; M 41/2). Secondly, though, studies show conclusively that we are dominantly attracted to what is similar and the Buddha teaches this, too (S 14). More on this below.
6. ‘Allies.’ The final group of ‘ally’ in this stratification is different from the ‘recognitions’ merely in that the friends (they could also be partners or student and mentor, see below) experience spiritual growth together. They go through some kind of transformation together. ‘Spiritual’ is meant here in the most broad definition of the term, i.e. any kind of personal growth that is beyond material gain. Close fellow students would not be included here unless also a shift in perspective beyond the material outlook is part of their connection. Teenagers who become affiliated with subculture by becoming hippies, punks or political might be included, though. ‘Spirituality’ would not typically be the terminology chosen for the life on barricades, in squats or mosh pits but there can be no doubt that close relationships formed at such transition points are categorically different from other, equally close friendships, due to their idealism. The commonality of a non-material goal adds an important distinction. Relationship or the rush of intimacy is in these cases not anymore the primary focus of the friendship. The goal of the friendship is abstract and usually distant, in genuine spirituality also deep inside. The greater, more in common and more important the goal is, the more pronounced the effect will be. It is the common goal that liberates these friendships quite automatically from much possessiveness, jealousy etc. The sacrifices and honesty necessary for the spiritual growth experience filters out a good many fakers. The moral purity of many truly spiritual paths should further help erosion of relationships by vice. Most importantly, though, the friendship is held quite lightly in it’s subordinate status as servant for the higher purpose.
Obviously the power of the reconnection in a future life is also much enhanced and made likely, if one has been going together through a powerfully transformative growth experience together. Also on this, more below.
This paper takes it’s title from this last type of relationship. Although for illustration purposes all kinds of alliances are included in the definition, for the remainder of this paper only those alliances that directly impact liberation from repeated rebirth are discussed. The classification of friendly people attempted here is intended to set it off from other types of relationship. From the samsaric perspective all other relationships are either aids to this type of relationships or obstructions. They may be considered obstruction in so far that they encourage the deluded perception of the world and the suffering in generates, just as noble friends encourage disenchantment with the world. If this seems strong, it needs to be remembered that human beings notoriously underestimate the impact that their associations have on them. This phenomenon is also well known in sociology. From the samsaric point of view only those ‘allies’ which aid one in escaping from samsara are significant. On how they do so also more below.
Depending on culture, preference and gender, human beings assign significance to close relationships to varying high degrees. From the point of the Buddha, the problem with this dramatization is that few realize that everybody had these types of relationships with everybody else many times already:
“Of unknown beginning, monks, is samsara. A beginning to beings obstructed by the hindrance of ignorance and fettered by craving, running on, moving on, cannot be found. Not easily can a being be found that has never been your mother.” (S 15.14)
Self-evidently this is all the more true for siblings, children, lovers, of all of whom one has often many of in each life (S 15.15-19). This understanding of samsara has profound implication for the cultivation of relationships. All beings have tried every lifestyle, every gender, every partner, every family constellation, every friend many times and are still trying in every new life as for the first time. Their experiments of associating according to how they get along go nowhere and haven’t for millions of lives. Nonetheless, relationships play a key role in liberation from samsara.
The Buddha says that he sees no greater help for one looking for an aid to support their escape from samsara than ‘noble’ friends, i.e. those that provide orientation and encourage escape (It 17). Noble friendship is mentioned in several places to be the entire holy life (S 3.18; S 45.2/3), which is led only for the purpose of escaping samsara (M 22). In other words, emotional connection, the family, alma mater or any other given that provides human beings with a circle, needs to be considered immaterial to the type of the associations one should form. From the samsaric perspective, only beings who are of direct value to one’s development of the noble eightfold path should be chosen as friends; compassion aside, the Buddha advises to associate only with those of equal or higher development (A 3.26; S 3.18). It is from this perspective that everybody else is a drain and an imposition to be dealt with only in order to avoid further trouble. How?
Obligation to parents are made much of by the Buddha as they provide access to this realm (A 3.31). Their services are easily forgotten and then as now they are easily judged too harshly for wanting performance as parents, especially in light of one’s absolute dependence in childhood. Just as one was a constant burden on them in more than one way during one’s childhood, so they are one’s non-negotiable burden for the remainder of their lives. When has one done enough for them? On a strictly material level, never (A 2.34), since one would simply not exist as a human being without their constant sacrifice. Only if one creates access for them to a good realm oneself by inspiring the requisite virtue to obtain it in them, one can speak of having repaid their help. The Buddha gives parents even the right to veto an ordination (Mv 1), i.e. potentially the right to obstruct one’s exit from samsara.
Similarly, one has varying degrees of obligations to one’s spouse(s), children, students, teachers, guests etc. In an extreme case one may have military obligations to a government which, while the Buddha does not encourage anybody to meet them – hell or animal realm are the future options for combat death (S 42.3-5) – may be a bar to ordination as a monk (Mv 1).
These are obligations, sometimes indulgences, though, no more: samsarically it is foolish to delight in these associations or imbue them with some special romantic storyline. They should be outgrown rather than cultivated, especially emotional preferences. From a samsaric point of view, the less preferences one has with regard to culture, gender, age, social class and other particulars the better, for in that way one is able to focus without bias on the inspirational and ‘orientational’ worth of people, their example in cultivating the noble eightfold path, their ability to instruct.
From what is here often called ‘the samsaric point of view’ in which nothing but the escape from rebirth-creating defilement matters, the entire circle(s) of the hundred fifty people that one can associate with reasonably well, should be composed of people who aid one’s liberation. Their views and values and they way they are expressed in word and deed, suggest that mental development towards the extinction of suffering from a Buddhist perspective is the only important activity. They would function as inspiration, examples, illustrations, instructors, interlocutors, providers of feedback and other support.
From the reports extant in Buddhist scriptures that would have been quite frequently been the case in the fifth and sixth century BCE. Large households, such as that of Anathapindika or Mendeka, are mentioned to keep in their entirely the virtuous restraints of the five precepts and even eight on weekly sabbatical days. Obviously, these households would be closely connected with other similar households, partly of other supporters of the same monastery, partly of extended family in other locations. Especially lower stages of awakening are documented to be numerous in these communities. The majority of the often canonically mentioned monks, nuns and lay people have other relatives who are enlightened; the exclusive list of seventy five foremost disciples alone features seven relatives of the Buddha and many more foremost disciples are related to each other. Most contemporary mediation masters, too, have well-practiced family members as do many other meditators. These associated practitioners almost inevitably favor the same approach to the teaching. While these families may have a variety of lifestyle choices, professions etc. almost never will practitioners of meditation be adherents to ‘rival’ teachings.
This clustering of interest and talent is also common in other fields[16]. The Buddhist explanation for this phenomenon would be that people have cultivated preferences and contacts in previous lives and are now gravitating towards each other (S 14, A 4.191) – birds of a feather flock together.
In the representative Majjhima Nikaya, the occasions on which it is mentioned that people had some awakening experience are split about half between individual and groups. The groups, however, are often large so that the chance of being enlightened in a group context turns out to be almost exactly 100:1. Those meditators must have been at roughly the same stage in their practice and have similar reflective tendencies in order to be served so powerfully by the same teaching. This view would seem to be also supported by the fact that these teachings tend to be different. It therefore seems safe to assume that the people in question have been practicing together for several lifespans.
Also now, we can see that the majority of great meditators belong to a group of practitioners. Often people feel a sense of recognition when they come into their group, as though they had been in that group before. Every demand and idiosyncrasy of that group comes easy to them.
In spite of apparent differences, it seems that groups can progress in some rough unison. This is because those who are a little ahead tend to be less driven and take on more extroverted, administrative roles which slow down their spiritual development. Although the Buddha never recommends delaying one’s progress for another, there seems to be an evolutionary dynamic similar to that in families. Parents slow down their own development and financial advancement in order to raise children to their level and facilitate their progress towards the parents unfulfilled dreams. Spiritual practitioners often feel a natural obligation to make powerful sacrifices to educate and inspire those of similar interest.
Furthermore, socially oriented human beings tend to compare themselves with others in their group. Once near the top many lose drive, at least for a period, as if to acclimatize to the new stage. A noteworthy exception to this are a portion of people with traumatic experiences. A full third of American presidents and British prime ministers lost a parent before they were fifteen, an often deeply unsettling experience that shakes the kid’s trust in the stability of the world for good. A substantial number of top athletes come from desperate backgrounds that drive them in ways that the superior training conditions of athletes from secure backgrounds are no match for. The optimally motivating mixture is one of sane stability, clear goal orientation and profound anxiety at the most fundamental spiritual level.
One could even dare to make a rough assessment of how many lifespans may have been involved, based on the types of disciples that can be seen throughout these systems. Interestingly, in spite the fact that many people work hard at their own transformation, often over years, occasionally over decades, the type of disciple they are in their system shows relatively quickly (typically within a year or two) and does not usually change after that. Here are some of these types:
1. Sympathizers. There are those who have had short-term encounters with the teaching and never pursued an association much beyond that. Nonetheless, their world view is conditioned by this approach and they will feel comfortable with it, while feeling somewhat distant to other approaches. This system is their home. It is this sense that makes them – and all the subsequent groups – adherents of their system, rather than uncommitted cruisers who think and practice eclectically or outsiders who visit or practice within the boundaries of another system.
2. Supporters. Some of them support a monastery or teaching for years or decades but their involvement with practice is casual. Many villagers from villages surrounding great monasteries fall into this category but also supporters from bigger cities who may listen to proponent monks’ teaching but find little time or ambition to actually practice the teachings. They may not feel intellectual enough to confidently compare their approach to others but nonetheless, they are comfortable dominantly or exclusively with that approach and associate with people who feel the same way.
3. Mainstay. These are supporters on the inside of the system: monks, nuns and lay people who look after the physical monastery. Often they will have a good feel for the mores and players in the system, but relatively little involvement with refined analysis of the intellectual aspects of the system or substantial meditation experiences. Although exposed to much teaching, they are often more identified by the particular style of the system than intellectual content.
4. Administrators. They are monastics or lay people who start with serious transformative interest and practice for a short period intensively. In this period they acquire some ‘reflective acceptance’ of the teaching (M 95, M 70) and some meditative experiences (such as rapture or other peace of mind). This period passes quickly, however, and for most of the remainder of their association, they are involved with running the business aspect of these monasteries or centers. These people, especially the monastics, are doctrinally more invested than the previous groups. Typically they are quite submissive to the structure and their main interest becomes political. Their close contact with the leaders and publications of the system makes their affiliation and identification with that style the central part of their lives. While the previous groups could theoretically switch to a charismatic outsider without undue intellectual pain, this group is heavily invested in demarcation of the boundaries of their group, especially with regards to rivals, so their bond is quite profound.
5. Developers. These people are long-term students in their system but they manage to stay out of the contentious world of administration and local politics. They pursue with varying degrees of success the development of the path according to that teaching. Often more reflective and ambiguous in their consent to their teaching than the previous group – part of them may even be or be considered opposition – their involvement with their creed is typically more visceral. Just as ‘prodigal sons’ often don’t move far from home, much of what is considered ‘opposition’ by party-liners, are in fact well established adherents to the same system (see Cialdini, Influence).
6. Leaders. This group is recruited partly from administrators but especially also from unusual talent that is groomed from start into these positions. Leaders may be vice abbots, branch managers, occasionally lay teachers. They are different from the administrators in that they are spokespeople for the teaching. Their entire existences depend on their system. Also they have the privilege to modify the direction of their school. Typically they start ambitiously and end up somewhat jaded and permissive. Arahants do not do this with defilement. But even in the case of the Buddha this arch from exclusively elitist talent coaching to running a partially corrupt and regulated mass organization that cracks under the strain of wealth and wide ranging degeneration can be seen. Only the very best of leaders keep their cool along the way and regulate their group through successive stages of communalization towards an independence that survives their charisma. Luang Por Cha, Mahasi Sayadaw and S.N. Goenka are some great contemporary masters of this discipline.
There are, of course, various subgroups, exceptions and unusual cases. Exceptions include hermits of varying degrees of independence or genuine freethinkers who prosper within a host system. Opposition systems – systems of thought that arise in response to felt short-comings of established systems – have different, more free-floating roles, dependent on how developed and aggressive they are. Very commonly they are kammically closely connected to administrators or leaders. Conflict ties the parties together and while they believe to be diametrically opposed to each other. In other cases, opposition becomes establishment as soon as it attains power, as is the pattern in democratic political systems. Their kammic burden is attracting again internal opposition etc. etc. While some opposition is purifying – the Buddha encourages admonition across seniority – most is divisive in that it forces all witnesses out into a confrontational, distracting, diversified mode that disrupts meditation and focus on samsaric perspective. The all-round most wholesome form of dealing with discontent is withdrawal and intensification of effort, demonstrating better alternatives rather than building factions, whatever form that may take. Causing a split in a Sangha is one of the most unwholesome forms of kamma any being can make and even support is one of the most heavy transgression against monastic rule (Sg 10).
Such stratification is very common and easily recognizable by anybody who spends time in such systems. The stability of the roles assumed suggests that these are stages in the association with a teaching. It would be absurd to say that it takes six lifespans to become a leader in such an approach. Many of the above mentioned roles are conditioned by temperament rather than spiritual development. In some cases, substantial spiritual development may come from other sources. Perhaps, though, it is not so absurd to speculate that a majority of people that feel strongly about a system will likely be associated with it for half a dozen to a dozen lives or more.
Even if this is still too rigid a calculation, one will likely find that most people who are seriously associated with Buddhist mediation practice in this life already know some, most or all of the people with whom they will eventually be awakened. While still speculative, this is of great importance for several aspects of life.
If properly understood, it suggests that these are the most important associations in one’s life. Finding and cultivating these people is more important than any other external task.
With most associations, we leave the way they unfold to chance. Understanding the way kamma works, it is better, though, to cultivate these particular relationships with a clear view towards returns.
Small (or big J) faults and controversies may be overlooked in view of the larger picture and the long-term association. Consequently one’s own shortcomings will equally be endured and no long standing acrimonies remain.
Teaching these allies useful things or supplying them with teachings comes back in several ways. One gets to articulate one’s insight in the particular jargon or tone of the group (many people will initially be attracted to a group dominantly because of a familiar tone), one may receive teachings from them later on and the entire atmosphere is more cultivated. Connecting them with other people of one’s final tribe may result in becoming later on connected through them (possibly A 4.191).
Materially supporting allies is also of multiple benefit. One will become rich, i.e. independent, which in turn further helps to support the cause. The bond will be strengthened through gratitude and obligation, so that the above factors a-c flow much better, as though lubricated. The kammic result of a comfortable environment tends to enhance communal harmony. Destitution inclines towards transgression and conflict. Ghettos breed crime whereas people with normal conflict levels appear to have none if reborn in a heavenly realm.
In short, the more one can serve this elect group in which one becomes enlightened the better for everything and everybody. Everything else in the relationship – status, competence, being right – is not that important. Just as one cannot really get away from one’s family in this life (at the very least they live permanently in one’s head and heart), so these brothers- and sisters-in-arms are per definitionem with one until the glorious end. Everything, therefore, needs to be better with them: conduct, forgiveness, speech, generosity, earnestness in general.
All playing for power or rivalry is better played kammically, i.e. by creating kammic causes, if it’s really important to one’s well-being. Played out straight, these games will backfire not only with the reverse of the hoped result but also in a tension between those who should be friends. Such things will happen to some degree in most groups and are reversible to a good degree. But this is at substantial spiritual cost and takes a lot of time, and blessed are those who don’t have to spend time on this kind of purification. The largest part of these associations should be the bliss of ‘love at first sight’ recognition of the teaching, instant closeness with fellow students, rapid progress in the practice and easy success in communicating one’s inspiration to friends and family members. If this happens, it is extremely unlikely that one will lose the teaching during that lifespan, which in turn makes it difficult to lose it in future lifespans. Thus, one is beginning and maintaining a virtuous cycle of increasing benefits and safety.
In selecting a group, preferences and apparent coincidence will always play a role. It is important, though, to be conscientious at least with regard to two points. One, a group that compromises right view should be studiously avoided, no matter how many good qualities it may have. Especially wrong views with regard to kamma and rebirth (i.e. denying or downplaying them) or compromising the non-self and suffering teachings are poison to one’s development. The Buddha is extremely strong with monks who dabble in these views (M 22 and M 38 respectively).
Also any system that is disrespectful towards canonical teachings or limitations imposed by it should be watched with much caution. This is a tricky reservation because many great meditators are anti-intellectual and have but poor knowledge and understanding of scripture. In combination with boldness of character or a provocative personality, teachers may come to sound heretic, when many other indicators suggest high attainment. It is noteworthy, though, that many of such teachers are not all that successful with students that come from different ability or starting points than their own. In other words, while their communication of the teaching may sound impressive or interesting, it doesn’t get results. Important in difficult cases such as this is sound knowledge of the canon and sometimes a sense of humor. Even an arahant may mislead somebody to the point of losing the teaching, so ultimately one needs to make one’s refuge in the Dhamma, the teaching left by the Buddha (M 108; D 16).
Secondly, people who have character flaws like the above mentioned respectlessness and difficulty to be admonished are important to avoid. At A 5.146, the Buddha warns against friendship with a monk who supervises agricultural or presumably any other kind of work, who is getting into arguments and harbors hostility towards excellent monks. Anger is an important warning sign. The Buddha recommends avoiding people who are subject to anger categorically (A 3.27). Even if the anger is not directed against oneself, such a person will always attract worldly agitation and conflict to a practice situation. People around him or her become apprehensive or secretive. Such outward bound apprehension is the last thing one needs during intensive practice aimed at internalization. In a practice group, everybody should feel that they can be quite unguarded, make mistakes or show their weaknesses without incurring unpleasant results. In fact, these failings can strengthen a group as is proven by the strong bonds that are formed by those who go through formative periods together, be it teenage cliques, military boot camp, party universities or the frequently humiliating monastic formation.
Two more types of monks to avoid are mentioned by the Buddha to be those who are wandering about aimlessly for long periods and those who are unable to talk Dhamma in an inspiring way. Often such monks will be of agreeable character and full of anecdotes. Frequent change of community tends to train adaption skills. But like unbaked dough is not digestible enough to be nourishing; the superficial restlessness that this type of life implies does not tend to foster maturity. – These qualities can be taken to stand pars pro toto for characters to avoid, manifest as they may become in various ways. The crux of the biscuit is always the way in which one’s maturity towards streamentry and beyond is nurtured. The Buddha recommends deserting any setting that provides no hope to develop the noble eightfold path, even at the risk of being rude (M 17).
While human interaction and its idiosyncrasies seem at times limitless, there are only relatively few types of relationships. For the purpose of alliances, these become even fewer. Some consideration of the types of relationships one enters is useful because misunderstanding and waste of resources can be prevented that way.
The most classically spiritual relationship is that between student and disciple. It appears that these roles tend to remain stable over lifetimes. The Buddha seems to have been a leader when he wasn’t directly learning from a Buddha. The disciples close to him, were his disciples for many lives. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a common pattern. Therefore, when meeting a teacher, it is good to consider whether one would like to be his or her student for many lives. Does one feel understood? Is there a good match of preferences? Does the amount of individualization suit one’s style?
Similarly, a teacher can consider on what talent he would like to focus most of his style and what kind of tone, e.g. casual or reserved, he finds most helpful to cultivate. Does he get the results he wants with the methods he uses? Or does he even want to be a teacher? Many teachers end up somewhat reluctantly in their role and then smolder on in it, partly enjoying the trimmings, partly complaining about their lack of solitude. This is disorienting for the disciples and doesn’t seem to lead to any kind of specific future, let alone a satisfactory one.
Another superfluous point of friction can be the level of interest the student has in actually learning. Many disciple-type students feel most happy to support their teacher logistically. They have a little benefit from the instruction of the teacher and they delight in his example but they don’t want to be involved in anything intense. They may not feel up to it or do not want the type of humiliation real learning often implies – being a supporter can be quite a power-role. The teacher, in turn, may feel that the supporter could benefit much from a little more hard work or he may feel indebted for the support and therefore wish to provide something in return. If the difference in role-preferences is not understood, the formation of a good alliance can be seriously interrupted.
A type of relationship that is more flexible is that of friendship on equal terms. These contacts permit closer intimacy and more experimentation because of their lower visibility and greater potential for feedback.
The most important subdivisions are those regarding goals. Are the friends working on the same goal together? Are they working on the same goal individually, perhaps competitively? Or are they working on different goals individually?
Obviously, the most powerful alliances can be expected from working on the same goal together. The legendary power groups mentioned above belong into this category. A lot of personal interaction during a project creates a particular kind of intimacy, quite different from non-committal friendship. Mutual inspiration but also negotiation of differences serve not only to get work done but also to get to know each other.
If the goal is one of development or realization, each has to work on his or her own. When the next step can be perceived to be the same due to similar development, conversations can have great immediacy that can inform, instruct, inspire in a way few other relationships can. It may even be a plus here, that one does not, as in the previous group, have to step on each other’s turf.
In many cases, friendship may be close but one is working on different goals. For the purpose of forming allies, the question is how much one can identify and learn from the other’s practice. Can two friends studying different subjects at different universities benefit their friendship from this constellation? Just being nice to each other will not really create quality bonds. With skill though, learning from the mistakes of a friend or using his growth for inspiration can be helpful.
Meditation centers who prohibit discussion of meditation experiences among students destroy these benefits. At the time of the Buddha, such discussions seem to have been quite common.
It seems most people have scripted a preferred role for themselves and are looking for a situation that promotes it. This is important to recognize in that much frustration in relationships comes from differing expectations. One friend may seek out friends to work on a project with, while his closest friend may prefer to keep ‘work and play’ apart. Just the difference in what they are looking for may make for much frustration, both feeling that their preference is the better one.
In general, it is in these cases best to leave peoples’ role preferences untempered with. They tend to come from long forgotten lessons in the distant past and more often than not have a firm grip on the unconscious. None of the great disciples of the Buddha seem to have changed much in character. A sensual monk, like the Buddha’s half-brother Nanda may have become restrained or a stubborn monk like Ven. Channa may eventually have become humble. On the whole, though, people tend to shed their vices without changing their typology. This means that with many friends, teachers, disciples or supporters one will have to ‘live and let live’ while keeping on the lookout for the people who make up the allies, the workgroup that can potentiate effort towards enlightenment.
The Canki Sutta (M 95) provides a blueprint for finding initial orientation in tangible terms. It does not suggest that the guru will come when the student is ready, but that the student takes proactive steps to clarify his or her existential situation. The first step is finding a renunciant to ask questions from. The Buddha had many highly enlightened lay disciples, lot’s of whom were excellent teachers. Conversely, many of his monks appear to be a total waste of time and oxygen. Nonetheless, the generalization serves a good purpose. On the whole, somebody who professionally commits to an interest at substantial sacrifice will likely know more about his field. Much Dhamma is absorbed osmotically by monastics. Like autodidacts, lay teachers often have impressive, even surpassing mastery of one or several niches of the teaching. At the same time, though, they are also often lacking overview over the most simple aspects of Dhamma life. Even of monks who ordain later in life, the Buddha says that they typically don’t have a comprehensive grasp of the teaching. Not always is the cost of such misapprehensions negligible. Such teachers may be famous because they are able to package the teaching for easy consumption. This easy consumption, however, may come at substantial cost to purity and orientation. In some cases, they lead or even instruct their disciples not to take ordination. xxx
S 14, A 5.2xx
Societies, tribes, extended families and other groups contain within them further, smaller groups, temporary and long lasting alliances. Most people are part of several of these formations at any given time.
The most powerful of these groups are the stuff for legends (‘The seven samurai,’ ‘The Memphis Mafia,’ ‘The twelve apostles,’ ‘Seven against Chicago,’ ‘The Rolling Stones’) that gets their fans teary eyed.
These groups have certain characteristics. They tend to be relatively small, twelve being already a very high number. In class, twelve is the number at which instruction tends to shift from round table discussion to a frontal teacher-tells format; like most school, this benefits sheep-type individuals who prefer low visibility and regurgitation but sacrifices unusual talent, rebels and students with challenges. It is also said that every person over twelve in a group doubles the perceived size, i.e. the difficulty to effectively work as a group. In practice, optimal group size seems to be three to five; larger groups tend to subdivide into further subgroups (Manfred Sader).
Such groups tend to be all male, though exceptions can be found with not too much difficulty[17]. One sociological reason for this is that women tend to prefer very intimate one-on-one relationships to larger groups with a purpose. This is so from a very young age. Two boys tend to welcome a third playmate but two girls will freeze a third one out as an intruder. Another reason is that women tend to be dominantly interested in the relationship and their feelings about it, rather than external objectives. Even infant girls, a few hours after birth, are already more interested in people, whereas infant boys are more interested in material objects. This pattern continues through much of the two genders developments, resulting in earlier and better speech development of girls and better spatial and mathematical abilities of boys. The preference of boys for team play, competition, mastery, challenge and achieving quantifiable objectives all incline them stronger towards this type of unit.
Another characteristic of these boy groups is that they are heterogeneous, in other words the people involved tend to be different, typically in temperament as well as in specialization. Anybody who is in it just for the pleasure of being part of a group of interesting people weakens the entire group. Because of this, some martial arts clubs or Goenka’s school of vipassana meditation try to avoid help from those who do not also practice their art. What brings and keeps the members of a truly powerful group together is their common goal and their highly developed performance ability. In some ways these groups are a bundle of paradoxes. Members need to have partly similar ability in the same field of interest, yet they need to be specialized in different eras. They need to be able to work consistently by themselves over long periods of time – the term ten-year-rule is used by researchers of expert performance – which often condemns them to a life of isolation. Yet, at the same time, they need to be able to work with and even intuit others, make compromises or submit to the group. Eccentricities are common and often beneficial but just as often drive these groups apart.
The beginning of their power period is very important. One or ideally two of the verbally strongest members develop a powerful vision that infuses the whole group with overwhelming enthusiasm. This emotion and the way the leading idea is articulated to the remainder of the team, either in one-by-one conversions or by addressing an already existing formation, is the spark that ignites the potential of the other group members. The introverted specialist, the caring mother-type, the critic, may all play important stabilizing roles in the group. Their equipping, maintaining, balancing, however, is meaningful only because of the powerful drive of the inspired orator. Everybody else is expendable but without him, who may even have little further skill, the released energy will never suffice for creating a fusion bomb to impact worlds as such power groups can and do.
An open question is whether groups are more powerful when they are hierarchically structured or when they are anarchically self-organizing. It would appear that clear, relatively simple tasks that depend on time-efficient execution such as military or other criminal tasks J would benefit from a simple top-down command structure. Objectives that require creative solutions (art, invention, research, politics) or personal growth (rehab, meditation) would benefit more from the low feedback inhibition of groups that are on equal terms. In practice, these two needs will often overlap. A healthy group would improve their structure in the direction of the more helpful open or rigid system as may be required. An example of attempting the possibility for such adjustments are facilitators or moderators in talk shows, who bring everybody into play but also keep time and a limit on proliferation of discussion and emotion. In practice, idiosyncrasies, power interests and fears of changing what once worked often inhibit such adjustments, the result being the end of the glory days of that group. Especially, the wisdom-related abilities of self-reflection, the willingness to experiment and compromise offer some solutions to such impasses.
With regard to the development of the noble eightfold path, the single most important factor for determining the quality of a group is the spiritual development of the members. Everything else matters little. This translates especially into two differences to most other groups.
The group process can and should be perceived with appropriate detachment. Communities that get too caught up in the politics of their structure tend to sacrifice on development to their detriment. This detachment makes it more easy to compromise. In M 31 and M 128, Venerables Anuruddha, Kimbila and Nandiya who live together ‘like milk and water,’ viewing each other with affection (‘piya-cakkhu’) each one of them says, given the rare quality of their friendship, they consider their own preferences less important than those of their friends:
“I think thus: ‘It is a gain for me, it is a great gain for me, that I am living with such companions in the holy life.’ I maintain bodily, verbal and mental acts of loving-kindness towards those venerable ones both openly and privately. I consider: ‘Why should I not set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do?’ Then I set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do. We are different in body, venerable sir, but one in mind.”
As mentioned above, if the spiritual cost of being in a group is too high, the group or even the teacher may be sacrificed, need be at the expense of appearing rude. A monk who has neither his material nor spiritual needs met where he lives is advised to leave his monastery, even without taking his leave (M 17). The same point is made in the Sutta Nipata (45/6):
“If one finds a wise companion
As practice partner – noble, strong –
Overcoming obstacles,
Let him practice mindful, happy.
If one can’t find a wise companion
As practice partner – noble, strong –
Like an exiled king one may walk
Alone, like a rhinoceros.”
An open question is whether this holds true for a monk under the mandatory dependence of the first years of his monastic life[18] or under possibly long or unjust penance. Possibly the sutta was delivered before these regulation were in place. Samsarically, one would assume that practice comes above all other considerations and leaving a teacher in a normally inappropriate way is explicitly mentioned. In practice, though, monks who spend their initial years drifting from teacher to teacher tend to disrobe quickly. Noteworthy, the suggestion to leave instantaneously is given by the Buddha in M 17 only if material needs are not met. The problem with seeking better practice conditions is that this is usually not the cause for the student’s stagnation. Learning by trial and error is the course here. The errors do not have to be for the worse in as much as plenty of wisdom and humor with regard to the true causes of suffering may be obtained along the way.
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary the word ‘treacherous’ can have the meaning of being ‘guilty of or involving betrayal or deception’ and, secondly ‘(of ground, water, conditions etc.) having hidden or unpredictable dangers.’ Somewhere in both or either terrain of these meanings is the one here intended.
Human relationships are complex and the inevitable simplification in stratifying such experiences easily generates the impression of excessive, possibly autobiographically originating bias. Nonetheless, one of the most important types of information are warnings. Especially useful – as well as typically futile – are warnings about the hidden dangers in beautiful things. That life is full of disappointments, i.e. dis-illusionments, about things that everybody knows to be treacherous is testament to this reality.
With regard to alliances, some forms of closeness look promising, but empirically turn out more often than not disastrous. To a meditating person, falling in love with another meditator seems to be the solution to so many problems. The eternity perception that sensual love generates seems to integrate seamlessly with the long-term perspective of practice over multiple lives. Canonical evidence shows many couples who have practiced together. Quite a few, however, also decided to separate before going into full practice mode (The Buddha and Yasodhara; the Buddha’s parents also seemed to practice separately; Vens. Kassapa and Bhadda Kappilani). In practice, attempts to have the cake and eat it often fail. The waste of time and energy, the obsessive fixation with sensual perceptions, the personality enhancement and subsequent weakening, the confusion between spiritual and worldly loving kindness all take their toll in the form of frustrated desires. Only here, the results are dangerously mixed up with those of Dhamma practice: There is a real danger that Dhamma practice itself is not only neglected because of the many emotions but also associated with the frustrations themselves. The partner, who initially functioned as prove for the greatness of the teaching, now functions as prove for its limitations. The quagmire of daily friction, negotiation and compromise wears down practice & practitioners totally out of proportion to the initially envisioned benefit.
Since starting these kinds of associations is not typically open to reason, the main point that can be made here is not to seek these relationships out with too much hope and to drop them quickly if they get too hot, if practice is considered important. Certainly, monks or nuns who disrobe because they hope for a more intimate alliance in the Dhamma, are usually in for a raw awakening, sometimes within days after the fatal decision to abandon the robe. This should never even be considered.
The interesting question is whether the successful associations have characteristics that they can be predicted. It seems most of the Dhammically successful relationships come from stable, post-infatuation marriages, rather than ‘Vipassana romance.’ Both, people who are newly in love and the enthusiasm of proselytes who exclaim ‘anicca!’ at the end of every Coke bottle are somewhat tiring and the combination of the two doesn’t seem to help. It would also appear to help if the partners have a commitment to Dhamma higher than to the relationship as that would keep priorities correct and small things small: “Love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking together in the same direction,” as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote in ‘Wind, Sand and Stars.’ Meditation teacher and master administrator S.N. Goenka assigns assistant teaching positions preferably to married people, but only to those whose partner also practices the same technique (to avoid stress on the marriage); usually he makes both of them assistant teachers at the same time and they tend to teach the same courses, thus minimizing the danger of sexual student teacher relationships.
A disappointment similar to that of Vipassana romances is also common in another type of infatuated alliance. Many monasteries and meditation centers are run by committees. Usually the members of these committees come from the ranks of the most enthusiastic, often also most affluent and educated supporters of the institution. These people are normally successful in the world. Throughout the Dhamma universe, these committees are famous for creating unadulterated nightmares. Stealing money, bossing monks and lay teachers around, creating policies with childishly worldly ends in mind, are standard. Since they were elected for being shrewd in worldly ways, it is often nearly impossible to get rid of these people. A fair average is that the goodness of a typical committee members has a half-life of about two years. As in the case of love affairs, the initial enthusiasm and infatuation turn into frustrated contempt as familiarity grows. At the same time, these people have only a very casual commitment to and experience with Dhamma that often ends at the gate of the monastery or center. The lesson is to avoid giving power to such committees. There is no mention of this form of administration in the canon, in spite the fact that democratic city councils were common. Politically shrewd monks such as Ajahn Brahm select very weak members and require a senior monk with a veto right to be present at every session. The important point here is to be careful not to expect too much from highly asymmetric relationships. It’s easy to fawn over and expect miracles from exotic looking objects but most self-made millionaires stay in their hometown and most people marriages are between people who are born within thirty kilometers. (Dhammic) associations with famous people, between secular teachers and students or between business partners also belong into this group of potentially treacherous alliances.
A second large group of promising looking but potentially treacherous alliances can be found at the opposite end of the spectrum: the family. Parenthood engenders kammic obligations to the child’s gratitude and this is only one set of obligations to start with. Just being alive ends one up being profoundly indebted by the time of reaching adulthood. As Dhamma matures in the practitioner, this gratitude can be powerfully, sometimes painfully felt. Furthermore, family members’ preferences are well-known and they are easy to connect to. It is easy to expect miraculous alliances to grow out of these samsaric connections.
And indeed, most famous meditation teacher have had, since the time of the Buddha, also well practiced relatives. Usually, however, this is one person out of a flock of several dozens and, contrary, to what one would expect, both the Buddha and his most advanced disciples entertain by no means warm relationships with their practicing relatives. Only the ground reality of this type of association can elucidate the wisdom of their aloofness.
On the whole, influence on family members in reduced through the “familiarity breeds contempt”-effect. This is the world of endless banalities and perceptions loaded since infantile incontinence, commingled with remainders of past feuds and misunderstandings. That he did not change is considered the most attractive attainment from Dhamma practice in the eyes of many family members when a monk returns after years of absence. But even if dhammic alliances can be formed, they tend to mix into the practice aspect a disproportionate amount of family toxicity, from senseless chatter to inappropriate respectlessness. Someone, who has to practice and live within the same walls should try his or her best to find allies in that world. Necessary contacts should preferably be used to communicate Dhamma teachings, where this is not too artificial or imposing. Whoever can avoid the family context during periods of spiritual growth, though, will tremendously profit from this freedom.
A final group of potentially treacherous alliances are those between people of categorically different virtue or views. Their friendship may be close, loyal and meaningful and it may feature enlightening discussions. So far so good, and none of this needs to be denigrated. People don’t have to do everything in the same way to be friends. Nonetheless, often the differences are not givens but represent value systems. Value systems in turn decide priorities. Powerful alliances, however, require a somewhat equal commitment to risk taking, be they of a martial or spiritual nature. In times of peace, total commitment and general approval can cohabit easily. When it comes to waging war and making sacrifices, though, everything changes. The stronger committed may easily end up frustrated, the weaker one intimidated and cornered into something quite beyond him or her.
Different attainment, attitudes or preferences do not share this characteristic to anywhere near the same degree as view and virtue. View and virtue are also the prime determinants of future rebirth. Since alliances are per definitionem bonds over several lifespans, the strong likelihood that one will never see these people again adds a further caution to expecting too much from such relationships.
What emerges from this chapter on potentially treacherous alliances is a clearer perspective for the reasons the Buddha set up his monastic orders the way he did. Monastic orders take the spiritual seekers away from their family and embed them in a single sex environment of those with the most similar possible virtue and view.
As one travels the path of the Blessed One over time, one encounters many type of fellow travelers. Some are clearly ahead, some seem ahead for a time but then drop back or out, some seem on a more rudimentary level of practice. As years turn into decades, it becomes clear that this is not a quick path. Most practitioners seem to change not so much, not so categorically, as a first contact with the teachings may suggest. While they clearly may make progress, they also don’t change all that dramatically. All this helps to get an appreciation for a longterm development through a succession of many lives. This in turn can lead one to contemplate how many of such lives are still ahead but also give one inspiration by appreciating how one has covered quite a bit of ground already.
One notices some people are somewhat wedded to these levels that they are at. But what are these levels? We have some indicator in the four stages of enlightenments. There should be some kind of extension into the world of non-enlightened people also, though.
Here is an attempt at such a model:
In general, people will be seen in their level within the first year of their contact with Buddhism but with some there may be obstructions to seeing this clearly, for example very young age or an unsupportive environment. Their experience for the practitioners can be deceptive, however, because there are often powerful experiences in the beginning which suggest possibilities greater than realistic. Possibly this is due to the effect of quickly zooming to the level that they are at or simply because of yet undeveloped defences against spiritual practices.
Typically, they won’t move up more than one level. Often such a new level will be uncomfortable or deficient in at least one central aspect. This may be different at the very top. Most of them are able to lose their level, probably excepting the top two, even three layers.
[1] The Pali word for this is ‘sacc-anurakkhana,’ i.e. ‘guarding of truth’ (M 95).
[2] In M 2 the Buddha uses a didactically interesting form of analogy. Although the raging elephant and the stubble field are mentioned in the list of ‘taints’ (asava) to be avoided just alongside bad friends, the point seems to be to say that bad friends need to be avoided in the same way as elephants and fields.
[3] Due to lack of chronological information in canonical records, it is advisable to be careful about generalizing atypical reports (D 16: mahapadesa). The monastic rule being case law, many cases on record may have been superseded by later legislation. Nonetheless, the reactions to earlier cases contain valuable lessons, i.e. they were correct, even best, reactions to the situation at hand.
[4] The phenomenon has been termed ‘the bystander effect’ after the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese by Winston Moseley had been (falsely) reported to have been witnessed by 38 people without them doing anything. The research focuses on the curiosity that the more people are witnessing an event, the less likely somebody is to react, as they assume somebody else will or it is not necessary.
[5] Sabba loke anabhirata sañña (M 50; A 7.45).
[6] Though not courageous, their strategy might have been reasonable from a purely military standpoint; furthermore, this generalization does not take into account that certain parts of the Italian military – for example the mountaineers – were fighting very effectively. Note that another ‘Italian,’ Fabius Maximus (‘cunctator,’ i.e. the hesitator) defeated Hannibal in the second punic war also by avoiding direct contact and was, while effective, also unpopular with this strategy; and many Roman civilians died or lost everything the course of letting Hannibal pass. Italy lost WW II as part of the axis powers but has had more economic growth (in %) since than almost any other European country. While this is merely a (somewhat farfetched) example, it depicts that effective policy can be inefficient in obtaining admiration or friends at times when boldness is required.
[7] Accessory (law), in criminal law, accomplice in the commission of an offense as distinguished from the chief offender. An accessory before the fact is one who deliberately encourages others to commit an offense, but who does not take a direct part in the offense. An accessory after the fact is one who, knowing that an offense has been committed, takes active steps to shelter the offender from justice or to enable the offender to escape. Accessories must be distinguished from principals in the second degree, that is, persons who, although not the actual perpetrators of the crime, were nevertheless present and aided and abetted in the commission of the offense. The tendency of modern legislation has been to convert accessories before the fact into principals, and an accessory before the fact is often subject to a punishment as severe as that imposed upon a principal. An accessory after the fact, on the other hand, is subject to less severe penalties. (Encarta 2009)
[8] It should not be forgotten here, that many people did help the persecuted where they could and much Nazi terror was unknown to the public. Nonetheless, considering that, in the early 30s, Germany had a very active left and liberal majority that caused the Communists to be so confident of victory that they often collaborated with the Nazis to disturb gatherings of Social Democrats, it is remarkable how little was done. For psychological experiments into this mystery, see Stanley Milgram’s experiments that baffled the world by showing how people unquestioningly follow authority when commanded to harm people.
[9] Nuns usually did not approach the Buddha directly but went through monks; exclusive exceptions are a few rare cases where Mahapajapati, the Buddha’s foster mother approaches the Buddha with a situation (Cv 10).
[10] This is usually the case when a rule had been established already and monks were doubting how what they did fell into that regulation (in the Vinita-vatthu or case histories of rules throughout the Parajika and Pacittiya Pali).
[11] An example for this lack of infallibility would be Tan Ajahn Maha Boowa’s engagement in economics and politics (e.g. requesting gold from people to help the Thailand in an economic slump) that left many pundits with faith in his superior meditative attainment musing (i.e. doubting) whether the Buddha would have advised such activities.
[12] Which, if they exist at all beyond appearance and relationships, do not tend to be as defining in women as in men. Few women would be enemies with other women because they support different sports clubs (independent of men involved).
[13] Whereas mens’ social competence increases with attractiveness, the opposite is true with women: Studies show that very attractive women tend to have lesser developed social competence than their less attractive sisters. In short, archetypal ‘blonds’ or ‘tens’ are not as good to talk to and often have ‘bitch shields’ to protect them from excessive accosting. Communicability, however, is the dominant aspect in becoming a ‘recognition.’
[14] Women are said to have better sense of smell and feel touch much more intensely. Also alcohol has a more powerful effect on women, independent of alcohol to blood volume. Some think that women are better clued into early signs of relationship problems but this may just be a symptom of excessive expectations and consequent frustration (not least with themselves) which not rarely may be the cause of troubled relationships. Female/female relationships, especially lesbian relationships, are notoriously unstable which proves that female pondering and questioning of relationship status quo is not helpful or effective.
[15] Men may be disasters in many ways but this is typically known up front. Women are much better at projecting an appearance and while that gives them a headstart, it’s often difficult to live up to.
[16] Western social sciences stand somewhat bewildered by this phenomenon. Economic incentives, training facilities and coaches alone (in sport) don’t seem to justify the arising of talent in one place the way it does.
[17] A famous exception would be the three Polgar sisters who shook the chess world in the 80s in more than one way, not least of which was the refusal to play segregated according to gender. It would be interesting to hear an expert on whether they are a single sex group of three or whether the father and primary coach or even the mother would also count as members of the group. At S 3.18 the Buddha says to Venerable Ananda that he, the Buddha, too, should be considered a noble friend, in other words, a group in that sense would include teachers and also the mother. – Bands, sports teams and in increasingly androgynous society also business, research etc. provide exceptions. Political correctness aside, they remain what they are though: exceptions.
[18] The time for dependence was initially a minimum of ten years, but was later reduced to five if conduct and understanding have been sufficiently mastered. If they have been insufficiently mastered, this dependence may be extended to the entire monastic lifespan. Almost no teacher these days tests or even cares whether any of the factors for freedom from dependence have been fulfilled, better monasteries offering passive absorption of some instruction and a suggested five year affiliation. Few preceptors whose duty this instruction is could name or recognize the monks they have ordained the previous years, let alone say where the students are or what they know.