A leader in fact, someone with the ability to relate to a wide range of people
on a variety of levels and topics. That agility must be an aspect of a Buddha's
mind; in fact a requirement - in order to bring the Dhamma across to as many
people as are capable of receiving it.
For those who knew him there must be a hundred stories about the character of
Ajahn Chah: his willingness and ability to engage with a whole slew of people,
some of whom - generals, owners of gambling clubs, simple-minded villagers,
people looking for lucky charms - many of us would have written off as hopeless
and not worth wasting time on. Yet he had the kindness and the skills to draw
them towards the Dhamma. Other masters seem to approach things differently -
Ajahn Mun for example tended to shun society and avoided, as if it were quicksand,
settling into any monastery until the last seven years of his life. So one had
to track him down to some remote forest dwelling to receive a teaching; and
pretty soon he'd be off on his wanderings, without telling anyone where he was
going. Yet it is from him that at least two generations of great forest masters
have derived their inspiration and standards of practice. Elusive he might have
been, but his accomplishments have given enormous vitality to the Sangha: where
would we have been without him? Ajahn Lee, on the other hand, was one of the
first of Ajahn Mun's disciples to come out of the forest; he established several
monasteries, took lay people off on tudong, and gave hundreds of talks - some
of them amongst the earliest Dhamma talks to be recorded on tape in Thailand.
And there are many other masters, by turn humorous, remote, silent or highly
articulate; part of the richness of the Dhamma inheritance is that it manifest
through forms that, however purified, are still remarkably personal and idiosyncratic.
In a way this is a statement about what anatta (not-self) does not refer to
- there is a citta that is the subjective core of the personality. Citta is
not actually a thing, it is a process of sensitivity and response that modulates
according to circumstances in accordance with inherited tendencies; it is changing
from moment to moment. Anatta is the realisation that the citta is dependently
arisen; that means it is not Self - not some isolated and independent, unchanging
entity. Rejection of the citta as a process is at least as harmful as the assertion
that it is a permanent thing.
So the issue of personality also makes a statement about the practice, and the
expression of the Dhamma. Quite a few of the forest masters express their insights
in terms that are doctrinally questionable - Ajahn Maha Bua refers to the "deathless
citta" and Ajahn Thate had his own way of defining samadhi as distinct
from jhana. Yet these are people who have given massive amounts of endeavour
and commitment to the path of practice, and whose accomplishments are self-evident.
Then there was Ajahn Buddhadasa whose swipes at Acariya Buddhagosa, the foundation
stone of Theravada, are an embarrassment to the faint-hearted...then Ajahn Sumedho
raises eyebrows in Buddhist circles by references to God....The Buddha's statement
of teaching doesn't seem to allow much room: Bhikkhus, these two things conduce
to the confusion and disappearance of True Dhamma....the wrong expression of
its basic meaning and wrong interpretation of its significance (Anguttara Nikaya,
Twos, 20).
Maybe when it comes down to practice, we have to allow that language can only
offer basic meanings, the master has to indicate, within a framework of consistency
of aims and means, which expression and approach works best for which individual.
Direct practice means that the results can only be known in oneself. More precariously,
it also means that in the process we have to fully be ourselves - in order to
realise that our subjective core is not-Self. The classic tools of practice
are calm and insight, but do we always use them to enter the core? Or just to
change the form of the identity? Any experienced meditator will know how readily
self-deception covers the changing citta; how strong is the desire to be Somebody
Who is Enlightened; how in fact the most deeply-rooted hunger is not for sense-objects,
but to have an unchanging, satisfied Self. Calm and even insight at a certain
level, get enrolled in the mission to accumulate and bolster up the self-image.
So the other renowned strategy of the tradition is one of "pushing your
buttons": things seem settled and peaceful, so let's try a few weeks of
tudong with little to eat, insecurity and some sickness; let's see what being
in a noisy crowd of people asking pointless questions does to mindfulness. What's
it like when the daily routines seem dreary, or the teacher doesn't come up
with a talk that inspires us? What comes up out of the "enlightened heart"
is: "This is ridiculous! I didn't come here to do this! Who does he/she
think they are!" And a dawning recognition that the cosmetic job on the
mind is starting to crack.
The tests and trials vary in terms of persons and situations; but you notice
that the master is the one who doesn't get caught up in the drama. Sometimes
that one is outside, sometimes within. Whichever way it is, the teaching is
right there: with the revealing and acceptance of oneself as a prerequisite.
Then it requires discipline to take hold of the self-process as phenomena that
are dependently arisen; otherwise the practice turns into a personality cult
- narcissism or hero-worship. It takes a pretty solid kind of person to know
what they have - in order to know who they're not. It's a deeply personal thing.