Transcript: Episode #93: Alan Senauke, Engaged Buddhist

Following is the full transcript for the interview with Alan Senauke, which appeared on March 3, 2022. This transcript was made possible by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and has not been checked by any human reader. Because of this, many of the words may not be accurate in this text. This is particularly true of speakers who have a stronger accent, as AI will make more mistakes interpreting and transcribing their words. For that reason, this transcript should not be cited in any article or document without checking the timestamp to confirm the exact words that the guest has really said.

---

Host  00:16

whether one is listening to this in Myanmar or from outside the country, we know this is a very difficult time for many of us. In trying times like these, we can all use a bit more care and compassion in our lives. So on behalf of the team here at insight Myanmar, I would like to say in the traditional way meta is offered may you be free from physical discomfort may you be free from mental discomfort may You not meet dangerous or enemies May you live a peaceful and happy life and May all beings be free can come out of suffering. And with that, let's move to the show. See me and see we. way that we go to a meeting I'm really pleased to be welcoming Alan snarky to today's episode of insight Myanmar podcast. Alan, thanks so much for joining us here.

Alan Senauke  02:12

Thank you. I'm really happy to be here. And we'll see where we go.

Host  02:18

Yes, yes, we will. So I should mention the first time we met actually, the only time in person was that spicy by Thai restaurant on in your road and young gone in 2009. And little did I know how conditions would bring us together in this past year after that dinner so long ago. But in any case, we've been trying to hook up for months. And I'm so looking forward to the conversation that follows. I want to begin by telegraphing to listeners that we will eventually be discussing how you're leading and involved with engaged Buddhists around the world to respond to this crisis in Burma through your own organization of the clear view project, as well as through the international network of engage Buddhists or I Neb. But before landing there, I want to go back through your intersecting spiritual and political biography, to explore what has gone into informing your current activism and advocacy. And, you know, I don't know how we're going to fit this all in. So let's just start because you have quite a full and robust background before now. So to start with, you grew up in a Jewish home in Brooklyn, and went on to attend Ivy League school back east and eventually became involved in the issues of the day the you eventually became involved in the issues of the day, including anti nuclear and civil rights causes. Those were your first political engagements. And that initially led you to move from New York to California to Berkeley to be specific. So can you tell me more about the reasons behind that move?

Alan Senauke  03:55

Sure, well, actually, I'd begun doing that kind of engagement in high school, and it continued through college. The move to California was not so much to pursue political directions, it actually was to pursue literary directions. But by that point in time, my circle of poets and writers which had all of whom we had been involved in the Columbia University strike in 1968, we came out to California because that's where things were happening. But we at that point, had a forming, but integral understanding of literature, creativity, and social change. And it was a very, it was a very dynamic time when we thought that revolution was in the air

Host  05:00

Right, and did you find it to be in the air?

Alan Senauke  05:03

Well, it was in the air, but it didn't happen. But a lot of things, a lot of things happen that were changes in the culture. And they were also very powerful, repressive forces that were unleashed, particularly against communities of color, but also against any kinds of organization on the left. And we felt that as others did. So, yes, that was very clear. It was a very clear experience.

Host  05:38

And while doing some research for the interviewer, I was really struck by how many touchstones in your life were familiar to me. And I actually grew up in Northern California, nor about two hours north of the Bay Area. But my first experience is in Berkeley on Telegraph Avenue, specifically in the 1990s. It was like a different world that opened up for me when I started going there, you actually moved across the country to Berkeley, and you settled there really, in its heyday, when I was coming there in the 90s. I was only hearing about some of the stuff that used to happen there through friends and family that were there at the time. So can you describe what Berkeley was like when you arrived? Well,

Alan Senauke  06:17

we arrived in Berkeley in the summer of 1968. And then went back to New York. And when I came out, West again, about two years later, we moved to San Francisco, but Berkeley in the summer of 1968 was a police state, huh? It was really scary. We thought we were coming to liberated California. And there were tremendous tensions in the street. We live near Telegraph Avenue, there were groups of police parading down the street, there was curfew. It was a very tense time.

Host  07:02

Wow. So how did you learn how to operate in that environment? And how did the police state manifest itself during your stay there?

Alan Senauke  07:09

Well, I think it manifested itself, I was not involved in any street conflict at that time. And we were only here for a short time. And we were we were just enjoying other aspects of California, you know, backpacking and so forth. But we were very aware of the of the feeling and the avenue and it was, it was not comfortable. But we went back to, we went back to New York.

Host  07:41

So there are all these different forces that were operating in Berkeley at the time opposing forces. And then another force that was happening, aside from this kind of political division was that you got your first taste of Buddhist meditation in the form of Zen at this time. So can you tell more about what this experience was like?

Alan Senauke  08:40

Right? Well, my friends and I had had all been adventuring in mind altering chemicals. And that was we we always saw that as an exploration not as a means of just getting high. And it also got, in some sense, tedious. And we began to think that there must be other avenues to experiencing reality, to tasting reality. And around that time, an excellent book by Philip Kaplow of the three pillars of Zen came out. And we read that and that was the first book on Zen that actually described it as something that you did with your body. I mean, there was Alan Watts, way of Zen. There were books by dt Suzuki, but all of those were sort of philosophical and aesthetic, not yogic if you will. Sure. And we came out here and we decided, we would try to explore what Zen resources there were. And we found the Berkeley Zen Center, and sat there some days and also sat at Sakjoi, which was the, the Zen temple in San Francisco, where Suzuki Roshi founded San Francisco Zen Center, and we kind of went back and forth across the bay over the course of that summer. And that was that was really important. That was a seed that was planted for me.

Host  09:45

But that's interesting that the academy you make between the more philosophical or or just the intellectual properties of Zen, with the actual practice and where it fits in the actual body. Right,

Alan Senauke  09:59

there's actually another aside to which we were aware of which was you might call Beatson. Which was a prospective onset, and that was being generated by some of the beat poets, which was really, Zen is freedom. You know, Zen is freedom to do whatever you want it. And we were sorting this out, but we were sorting it out by by actually taking up the practice.

Host  10:32

Right, and without mention of beats. And I have to go a little off script and just ask one question out of personal interest, or rather personal fascination, maybe a more accurate way to put it. I know, You've crossed circles with Gary Snyder and Alan Ginsberg. And as someone whose life was shaped in more ways than I can describe by Jack Kerouac, I'm really curious how you would characterize his understanding and practice of Buddhism.

Alan Senauke  10:58

It's hard for me to say, I mean, Kerouac was was somebody who really seemed to get at the essences of things. And yet, they didn't free him. Ah, which is, which is really painful. Yeah. And I think in part that's because he lacked he lacked a teacher, he lacked the Sangha. He was really focusing on the Buddha as the expression of liberation. But as we know, from from practicing that there are three treasures, Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. And they're all really essential. And so he's not somebody I knew. I didn't know Alan quite well. I know Gary, and Phil Whalen. And all of them to one degree or other did recognize the triple treasure. And I think that it's sustained them through their lives.

Host  12:15

So you think that collection of be poets and writers who also had a Buddhist practice that it was more than a kind of passing or superficial interest? Because one of the criticisms you do here is that when certain Eastern philosophies came to the US, and especially as they were picked up by people that were more higher profile, that they were more just kind of touching, especially some of those Indian gurus that they were more kind of touching at the edges and cherry picking what they chose and how they applied it. But for the group of people that you were closely in touch with, you felt that there was really a genuine experience of practice and understanding among many. Oh, yeah,

Alan Senauke  12:56

I mean, Gary lived in Japan for many years. He studied with a very rigorous Rinzai Zen teacher. Philip was a student of Suzuki Roshi sin was himself, a priest. And Helen was a very long term student of Tibetan Buddhism. So so they, they knew their stuff.

Host  13:27

That's great. I, like many people. When I grew up, I learned about some of these eastern influences through the musicians and writers that I was following. And then as I got deeper into practice, I would come out and look again that how they had understood some of the influences and feel that it was more superficial than I'd remembered. Because at the time I'd heard of it, it was so new. And when I did a reread recently of Dharma bums by Kerouac, I was actually pleasantly surprised how much it still stood up, I was expecting to see a lot of kind of my deeper practice informing me of more of the the things he didn't understand. But rather, I was floored by how someone of his background and his time was writing in the way that he was. And I just, I just adored Kerouac. And that's why it also breaks my heart so much to see those older pictures of him and to know, the alcoholism and the the bitterness that he developed into. And I think you you put it just just brilliantly that someone that that seemed he was really, genuinely trying to get at the essence of this at a time when so many weren't. And yet somehow it didn't liberate him.

Alan Senauke  14:39

And there are other artists like that. There. People are Laurie Anderson, in present time, there was Peter Matheson right was very, very strong practitioner and himself became a Zen teacher. And all of them. I felt like these are people who really went deep.

Host  15:04

Yeah, that's great. So getting back to this three pillars of Zen, I found it interesting that later, one of the issues you had with the book, and really an entire form of Buddhist practice, in general, was what you described as, quote, the overt valorization of Satori and quote, can you describe more what you meant by this and what was on appealing?

Alan Senauke  15:26

Well, what I meant by it, it was very simple at the time. At the time. You know, I was 20 years old. And I had been in a highly competitive High School. And then, even though I wasn't competing in a highly competitive academic environment, and there was an unconscious message that I was supposed to succeed at things. And so far I had done okay, that respect. But I really wasn't interested in setting some more goals. I wasn't interested in a practice that was about accomplishing something. And at fact, in that, at that time, I wasn't aware that the school that I had taken up with was also one of the watchwords the school was no gaining idea. And that was a very different orientation, then the style of practice and the emphasis that you found at Rochester Zen Center. And I didn't, I didn't know that at the time, because I never asked anybody at Brooklyn center. So I sort of missed that. And I had to come back and find it second time around

Host  16:58

and read elsewhere, you described it as the difference between gaming and no gaming.

Alan Senauke  17:04

Right. And this is a, this is a live. And I think it's a very fruitful, dynamic tension. within, within Zen, and it's live, to be honest with you, it's it's a live discussion in my household, because my son just returned from a year and a half at a Rinzai monastery in Japan. And now he's immersing himself in our style of practice, and it's a live dialogue with him. And then he and I speak of it a lot.

Host  17:43

So this is like a dynamic between a more concentrative and inward style of meditation exam that is more responsive and outwardly open.

Alan Senauke  17:52

That's exactly right.

Host  17:54

Right, and it sounds like you've landed more on the ladder. Is that fair to say?

Alan Senauke  17:58

I think that yeah, I think that the emphasis in, in Soto Zen is on a practice that is quite receptive. And fluid. Concentration is always a factor. But it's a factor. It's one of the it's actually one of the factors of enlightenment. And you need some degree of concentration. But the Soto practice itself is generally not a concentration practice. It's it's more of an open awareness practice.

Host  18:40

And you're, of course, referring more to Zen, if we look in Theravada, the same dynamic exists.

Alan Senauke  18:47

And you know, what's become what we call the pasta now, was was actually part of a Buddhist revival, going back at least to late 19th century. But I wouldn't say it's an authentic it's, it's just another manifestation of Buddhism in the same way that you wouldn't say necessarily, that Shin Buddhism, or Nichiren, Buddhism, and Dogan, which who they all are, arose in 13th century Japan, and they were all movements to make practice a practice that was obscure, more accessible.

Host  19:35

So I'm wondering like whether you're looking at these more structured experiences in Theravada, such as Glinka or in the Zen world, when you first became involved? Do you find these kinds of courses problematic in any way or do you think there's a role for them, but they need to be balanced with something else?

Alan Senauke  19:56

I don't think they're problematic I for some reason comes Mind is somebody asking Frank Sinatra what he relies on. And he said something to the effect, whatever gets me through the night. And that's the way I feel different people respond to these various practices according to some mysterious qualities that we have in us. And what I'm interested in, really is, how do they help us be open to ourselves open to each other, and benefit the world. And one of these back, every one of these practices, has the capacity for that, because they're just about all of them are about opening our awareness.

Host  21:03

Yeah, I think that's great. And I think that the more of these types of experiences that can be found outside of traditional Buddhist societies is great, because I've lived in Myanmar for 15 years. And one of the things that has really impressed me in being integrated into a living Buddhist society is the amount of options that are available, the amount of places that you can go to learn how much you could learn how much the extent to which you can decide how much you want to be involved to this level, or that level. And really being able to mold and shape your spiritual life according to all the different traditions and opportunities that are there. And then going to the west and seeing the much more diminished possibilities there. It's really on the student to try to fit him or herself into those existing formats. And so I think the more that those opportunities exist for the practitioner to decide where they want to place themselves, it really can just be beneficial.

Alan Senauke  22:02

Well, but you can also consider that there may be more living traditions of Buddhism, available in California today, than any place in the world, maybe ever. I mean, basically, every tradition is alive here. But being Americans, we're often given to shopping around great. And that can be problematic, I was really lucky. I was so lucky. The first place I landed to do practice was Berkeley Zen Center. 15 years later, when I was really ready to take a practice. And I returned, I was back in Berkeley, and I returned to Berkeley Zen Center. And that was it. That's been my, my route and my home. But I also have a, you know, a curious mind. And I had a teacher who gave me a very wide field. And so he really allowed me to explore a range of practices to explore Buddhism in the wider world. And that interests me quite a bit. That's just the way my mind works. But as far as the core teaching, and core practices is it

Host  23:39

and you reference how you went to California, you then move back to New York, you came back a number of years later and went to the same Zen Center. And according to my understanding through that time, you also got involved in a couple other activities that influenced you to come back to Zen. You got became involved more in music in psychedelics, as you mentioned before and in psychotherapy as well. So what role did you find these different activities playing in reconnecting you with that form of Buddhist practice?

Alan Senauke  24:10

Well, on the one hand, being a musician is really about paying attention. And particularly, it's about music that I play is has always been sociable. I've always played with people so you really have to pay attention to your your interaction, your personal interaction and your musical interaction with those around you. And I love that that was always such a great pleasure for me. So that's one side. The other side is that as a as a professional or as an attempting professional. And as a person these pursuits Politics, music, psychotherapy, were not completing a picture, they were not answering a really fundamental question for me of what I was doing on the planet. And that's what led me back to Zen.

Host  25:28

And another thing you mentioned that played a role was the Snow Leopard by Peter Mathias. And here again, is a really interesting parallel to my own life. I read that book before I ever started meditation when I was just out of college. And that work plays such an important part in my own later spiritual journey. I think if I have to put my finger on it, I was going through this period of immense suffering in the world. And I simply didn't think it was conceivable to gain some kind of acceptance into the intensity of the mental anguish I was going through at the time. And yet, in that book, the author is trying to do just this. And the mere possibility of a struggle as I read about it at the time, I still remember it hovered somewhere between the miraculous and kind of a fool's errand as I was processing this. So I don't think any answers were actually given to me when I was reading it. But there were certain questions that were framed that I've been working through the rest of my life. And I still remember when I read that. So I'm curious, how did the Snow Leopard impact you when you read it?

Alan Senauke  26:33

Well, it was it was really, I mean, first of all, it's a beautiful book. And it's very moving. And he was in a very difficult place. Yeah. And he took on this task of finding a snow leopard. But I think that there was a very, I've had this response in my life several times, where I read something or I hear about somebody who's doing something. And there's an internal voice that says, I could do that. And I think more than anything else, that was what was catalyzing for me about that book. And I read about him sitting zozen in caves, I have no desire to go to caves in the Himalayas, and citizen, but the sitting zozen, I thought he could do that there. I could do that here. And that was a motivating factor. And I really, I'm grateful that I actually had, I had an opportunity to tell Peter, which was very felt really good felt really complete to me.

Host  27:59

What was his response? Oh, it

Alan Senauke  28:01

was very warm. I mean, he's, he's was a non, you know, just the non assuming person, very ordinary in certain respect. I think he appreciated it. And we knew who each other was from our engaged Buddha's work. And that's it. I just wanted to, I didn't expect anything I just told him. But that was, yeah, that was one of the things I've the two books that were inspiring to me at that particular moment, was snow leopard, and also the empty mirror by John Young fender veteran, which is not a very encouraging picture of Zen practice to tell the truth, but it encouraged me. And then I found Zen Mind, beginner's mind, which hadn't been published when I was practicing law. And that was it. Yeah, yeah.

Host  29:04

So through all of this story, it's hard to know where and how to begin talking about your overlapping political activities, whether to short the political and spiritual on different paths or to treat them sequentially. So anyway, let's just take a moment and look at some of the issues of the day that were happening around your practice, and how that fit into your emerging spirituality. I think this is not only integral to understanding your own life, but also is very relevant for the present day. And what we're dealing with now. In an interview you did with Richard Brian McDaniel, you noted that quote, There was a tension between certainly doing Zen practice and the kind of socio political demands that I felt as a young person and quote, can you say more about this tension?

Alan Senauke  29:54

Sure. I thought the spiritual was in one box, and the political was in another box. And I did not at that point, see the integration of the two and I wasn't seeing anybody integrating them. In what I was what I was reading, this is going back. Now this is going back to the when I started practicing in the 60s. In point of fact, Gary Snyder was already doing this. There were people who were already doing it, Robert Aiken was. But I hadn't read those things. And when I came here, in 84, there was already any, there was an evolved, engaged Buddhist organization, Buddhists peace, fellowship, and their perspectives that were being laid out. And I had kind of come to a burned out stage, in my political practice. As of a few years before that, but those instincts and those understandings or ways of looking at the world, we're still there. And when I heard about Buddha's fellowship and read, read the newsletter, I, I felt, here are people doing what is just very logical to me. If we're talking about saving sentient beings, let's talk about saving sentient beings. And so that was available right away.

Host  31:41

So you went on to join the Buddhist Peace Fellowship did that join?

Alan Senauke  31:46

I was kind of a lurker, you know, I got the magazine, I didn't really go to meetings. But I was in touch with what was going on, and generally aware of what was happening in the Buddhist world,

Host  32:00

and what activities were they engaged with at the time.

Alan Senauke  32:03

And if they were engaged, they were really engaged with anti military and anti nuclear activities, on the domestic front. And internationally, Buddhist Peace Fellowship was turned was tuned into repression that was going on in Tibet, to religious discrimination and repression in Vietnam, in issues that were happening for Buddhist communities in Bangladesh, and so there was an internationalism to it.

Host  32:40

And in describing what appealed to you about it in the same aforementioned interview, I was struck by how you use core Buddhist philosophy and understanding at trying to understand and look at the wider world systems. You were looking at the nature of suffering, and you said that, quote, the nature of suffering that Buddha's Buddhism is so good at describing and working with that, that nature was not individual that it manifested individually. But that manifestation also had social dimensions. In other words, suffering was also related to systems of oppression systems of suffering. And I think that, and that, I think, is a common understanding for a small group of people. It was an uncommon understanding in the context of the general approach to Buddhism in the West, and for the East, for that matter, and quote, so that, quote, really struck me of how you were using Buddhist principles of suffering that were usually described in an individual way individual basis. And one was led to understand through one's own immediate practice and awareness, and trying to apply them and understand how they would then operate and transmutate at the Greater systematic level.

Alan Senauke  33:55

I mean, I've always tried to do that. My orientation is, in many ways to Buddhist principles and practices and systems of thinking. So I'm interested in seeing how modern political thinking might manifest in in Buddhist terms. And I saw certainly among the the leaders of engaged Buddhism among rabid Akin, Joanna Macy, Gary Snyder, to lots of Roxa kid not Han, they were all doing the same thing. And that was inspired and then there were, you know, a circle of people in my generation, and in my circles around BPF, who were doing this and we found each other. So that was that Just how I've operated for 30 years. And it makes a lot of sense to me. It's not the only way to look at things, but it's how I choose to look at things. And I will say, reference to what you you mentioned, when I came to Buddhist Peace Fellowship in 1991, I would say this kind of perspective was decidedly minority view of Buddhism, and often was looked on askance by other Buddhists who felt that this was leftism in Buddhist robes. No, not really Buddhism. And it's really different. Now, here we are 30 years later. And a lot of these principles are much more integrated into Buddhist practice here, and Buddhist practice in other places in the world. I mean, if you look today, there, I got a short video two days ago from international network of engaged Buddhists, which talks about the work that they've been doing in Myanmar for the last number of months. And there's, you know, a section of them a section of this video, which shows monks, monks protesting monks resisting the coup. And it's not that they learned that from the west. That's their in their tradition. But there's a coming together, I think of Western political perspectives, and dharma perspectives, that I think is very much alive.

Host  37:07

Mm hmm. Right. And I think in Myanmar as well, there's certainly a history of the monastic involvement in various worldly affairs. That's obviously a debate going back from time immemorial, of how to what extent should monastics be involved or not involved and the nationalist struggles there were many monks that played an important role during the British era. And I think that today, I mean, we see that in Myanmar on both sides of the aisle, both in terms of the monks that are protesting on the street, and as well as those that are supportive of the anti Islam and military sentiments and wanting to so called offer a protection of Buddhism in their country. And I think that there is there certainly is today a wider acceptance and manifestation of what's been termed engaged Buddhism that various practitioners are practicing and various forms, but I think there's also what you mentioned how it's leftism masquerading as in robes, and in practice, I think they're still those sediments that remain and are pretty prevalent to some degree. I think that one of the ways I see it manifested is not so much that expression of leftism masquerading as Buddhism, which I can certainly identify with, and, and hearing, but I hear more, that it's that those who are those practitioners who are choosing not to engage, well take it almost as a mark of wisdom, almost as a mark of a deeper understanding of the conditions of samsara, and the the emphasis on the inner practice, while the outer manifestations continue, as they always have as they always well. And so I've seen a kind of like scoffing or sarcasm or criticism of those that choose to engage as kind of a sign that they don't really understand Buddhist tenants or artists devoted to Buddhist practice as those who are focused more on the internal journey,

Alan Senauke  39:14

I think the the central factor in monks non involvement at this point in time. And there are monks who are quite involved in very supportive of the N ug and CDM. I think the principal issue is is fear. I think that they've been intimidated in the intervening years. Since the Saffron Revolution, we're talking about 14 years or so now. And at that point, they were unified and they were encouraged by There are masses of numbers who are coming out in opposition to the hunter. And in, I would say in identity with the population, but also in recognition of the ways that has monastics, they were directly affected by the precipitous price rises in basic substances, which meant people could not feed them. And, you know, I hate to say it, but there was some self interest that was involved in their protests, as well as larger interests and identity with the population. I think in subsequent years, the government which seemed that it was on a kind of popularizing trend, I wouldn't say democratic, but was trying to build up a popular a popular connection with, with sectors with popular sectors in the monastics and I think they were very successful in, I think they've been very successful in CO opting the monastic monastic communities and also probably the monastic hierarchy, which is, as usual, kind of elderly and vulnerable. And I don't think that they have very many people who are actually really unpacking what we might think of as engaged Buddhism. Give me more, they probably are a handful. But I think there are very few that are looking beyond the Burmese traditions. Beyond whether it's the Adamic tradition, or the, or the meditational, traditions, they don't have a lot of input from the wider Buddhist world. And so they they also don't have, they're not pretty much participating in a dialogue between the social elements have sort of engaged Buddhism, and their, their perception of traditional forms. The other thing that comes to mind is in terms of their, the distortion of the Sangha is that we've lived with a tremendous upheaval in a nationalist tendency, in Myanmar, Buddhism, that manifested in, in ethnic hatred, and that was widely supported. It was supported within the Sangha was supported within, within the public public circles. And it was supported from within the government and the military. So that was part a part of I think, that the clock occasional dimension of what's happened to the Sangha in the last 1415 years. That's very significant. And even though some of those voices have been normally chastise, I suspect that those tendencies are still there.

Host  44:06

Yeah, I think those are some really good points that you bring up and taking us through the last 15 years. And on the one side, you have this rise of Buddhist nationalism. And we should mention that there have been progressive elements within the Burmese Buddhist monkhood, that we just don't hear about that just aren't reported as much in the west and that the movements that are happening here are under an especially now enormous pressure and danger in terms of what they're doing. I mean, there was the whole white rose movement and this was a this was a collection of Buddhist monks that would go into Muslim communities and give a white rose to the different Muslims of the sign of solidarity. And beyond that there have also been stories of some of the worst riots that it was Buddhist monasteries that eventually ended up housing and shielding a lot of the Muslim communities that sought refuge there. So it is a bit more nuanced than sometimes you hear reported, but I do think that obviously obviously now with the coup that much more aggressive etha national type of jingoistic Buddhism has been is being promoted that promotes the Bomar nationhood and the the nationalist goals and is quite racist and its outlook as well. And I think there is a tension as the country is opened up that was probably to be expected that as greater opportunities started to be found there. Though there was competition with Buddhism, there was competition with the kinds of jobs and entertainment and travel opportunities and education and everything else that simply by having a society where there are almost no opportunities or distractions or diversions or anything anywhere, that if there weren't too many games in town, and I think that was an understandable and even expected development that would come when the country started to open, but that it has made a kind of divide of who is going to be a lifelong Buddhist monk and who was not. And I think a lot of the people that are a lot of the Met the Burmese men that are now going to the monkhood are from communities that are more disadvantaged and have the opportunities haven't reached them. And there's more poverty. And I think that from those middle class urban families, I think it would be very odd for a young man to decide to not pursue a worldly path of livelihood and family and everything else, and instead be a lifelong monk. I don't really know of any examples from the modern day where that's happened, of course, they still go to monks, they still practice meditation, they might still practice the precepts, they would ordain temporarily, but in terms of lifelong monks, not as much, and so that is making a divide between the reality that the monkhood has and their issues and their understanding and the new direction that a lot of the younger direction is the younger generation is going where they're they have less in common, they have less of a shared reality than they certainly did 10 years ago. And I, I think that we're seeing that manifested in some of the comments and feelings of that younger generation. And a couple examples I'll give. One is that after the interview I did with Bhikkhu Bodhi, I was contacted by a by a young Burmese man who heard the interview was very inspired. And we ended up having a lengthy email conversation. And he explained to me that he felt one of the problems that we were now facing, and what he called the the absolute failure of the Burmese Sangha was that they simply refuse to modernize, they refuse to be progressive in any way. And as as someone who had been a monk, and whose friends were currently amongst the things that he was pushing for, for many years to have greater modernize it to modernization of what they were doing, how they were thinking, keeping, of course, the tenants of what it means to be a monk, but just being a bit more aware of moving into a new era that that simply wasn't happening. And that close mindedness led to what we're seeing now of these traditional old guards. And I think where that leaves us off right now with the current Burmese generation in relation to their monkhood is that from the people from the the young activists that I speak to, this is kind of the culmination in a feeling that the Sangha has shown itself to be irrelevant and irreconcilable to their life, that at the time that they most need the support of a kind of third rail of a Burmese society that can do things that no one else can. For the most part, they've been largely silent. In some ways, they've, I think there's been a vocal minority who's actually been supportive of, of what the military is doing. And so I think this is kind of the culmination of many years of this young generation growing up with different opportunities and not and having a greater divide between the monastic experience. And given this time of such extraordinary need. I think at the beginning, there was there was a mix between anger and hope and disappointment and persistence in terms of wanting to encourage them to engage. There was a mix of these feelings that I saw in February and March and sometime after March or April, they've just become a non factor. They've just become something that if these people aren't going to do anything, we don't need them and let's move beyond them and let's create our own reality. And I think this brings up a fascinating and you know, also perilous reflection on what what does this mean in the future? Obviously, it's going to matter whether there's a democracy movement wins or The military stays in control. But either way, this is creating and widening fault lines within Burmese Buddhism and the lay Sangha relationship that I've never heard of or seen in centuries and millennia of the history that I've read, in terms of where this young younger generation is going. And it's completely understandable that they would make those evaluations that these guys are completely worthless. They're completely irrelevant for the the thing, the aims that we have, they are not doing anything to help. And if they're going to leave them behind and see them as unnecessary in this moment, is that going to change? Are they going to come back and start to feel that they then have a place? Or is this just going to be the start of something that widens that is forever more changed as a result?

Alan Senauke  50:46

Yeah. Well, it's interesting, because the unity that was manifest in the Saffron Revolution, has been replaced by the unity of, you know, forces red led by Wirathu 969, Baba TA. That's a new kind of unity. And it is. It's happening as you say, it's happening within this opening of the country. And the country is, it's radically different than when, when I first went there, and the young people are different, the young people are exposed to influences from everywhere. And they are very hip and the monastics are hiding out. They're hiding their heads, for the most part, time their heads under under a rock, with, with some exceptions, but the exceptions don't really have any power. They're not located in positions of authority, in the training monasteries, or in the hierarchy. And this is why I think that young people for the first time is very different than then in 2007. They're saying, we don't, we don't need this, we don't need this kind of Buddhism. And they're actually I've been speaking to people who are actually interested in other modalities of, of Buddhism, and are just really had for the first time dipping their toes into other waters. Yeah. So I think that the monastics are probably frightened. They were frightened there, that fear was manifest in this kind of radical nationalism, of where I too, but it's not gonna go anywhere. And I don't have without substantial change, I don't have a lot of encouraging thoughts about the Sangha. In Myanmar.

Host  53:41

Yeah. And I think traditionally, some of the older guard has had a mindset that we need to keep the status quo we have this responsibility, this traditional lay monastic relationship that has been defined and we need to make sure it's upheld under changing times and whatever, not be caught up in the moment. And so there's a real conservative and traditional focus on wanting to preserve and strengthen these monastic and Buddhist traditions no matter what but it's having, it's having this counter intuitive effect, because by holding so closely to a teaching, as as people's lives and freedoms are literally at risk, by the the attempt to try to hold on and preserve those, they're actually taking the action which is going to most encourage their irrelevance and, and lack of engagement and practice from from those people because they're not responding to the needs of the moment. They're showing themselves as completely tone deaf about what people need. And this is really a shame because this is not what has always happened through different other turbulent stages of Burmese Buddhist history. There have been, especially when you look at the colonial era and we look at all The period of the warring states and the kingdoms and everything else. There have been very shifting times before not quite like this, but shifting in other ways. And there have been ways to respond to that moment before the greatest example you can put there as lady say it on what lady said it was able to do at the time of the British and the colonial period to take the the core of the classic and traditional teachings as he understood them, and yet adapt them and bring them into a dynamic way of use and to a greater audience. And practicality that have never been seen before

Alan Senauke  55:33

was that my my curiosity is, was that influence within the Sangha, or within the society? How deeply the changes that he brought in, particularly in terms of making Buddhist practice available to laypeople? How deeply did that reach into the structure of the Sangha itself?

Host  56:02

I think it reformulated the entire lay Sangha relationship, because at that time, you had the king and the ministers who were responsible for the upkeep and the administration of the Sangha and the king have been deposed. There was no more royal court. And so, there was a question of, how do these what becomes the new lay Sangha relationship now, that this thing has been removed in some ways, you could even say that this was a more, this was a scarier time and more potential catastrophe then then even now, because this was centuries and centuries of a, a royal Sangha relationship with the people underneath both of them. And one of these components had been removed. And so lady had to had to reformulate how, how the entire monkhood would then relate to the people and did so in a number of extraordinary dynamic ways that would take another several hour podcast to go into. But the point is that he he was able to draw upon a classic understanding of Buddhism at a depth level. So he wasn't making a new religion, he wasn't making sacrifices or negotiating key parts of the Buddhist experience. He was relying on this classical understanding, but he was so dynamic and flexible, and how he was able to give people new tools for interacting with it. And that's what we need now. And that's what we're not getting.

Alan Senauke  57:26

Well, obviously, I would imagine that in the conversation with Bhikkhu Bodhi, he pointed to resources within the tradition that could be utilized. And, you know, I think that there's been a choice made. You know, it's not that the monastic order are necessarily irrelevant. It's that they have chosen in this moment, to take the wrong side. In my estimation, and interestingly, we have an example 14 years ago, of them using aspects of the tradition to take, you know, to take a stand with people. And as I said, I feel that they've been they have been co opted, and bribed and frightened into a corner. And to stand there in this corner is too for them to consign themselves to irrelevance.

Host  58:44

Yeah. And in no way do I mean, to suggest that the Burmese monkhood is irrelevant. The point is that they have shown themselves to be irrelevant in the eyes of the younger generation. That is, their lives and freedom are at stake and this old car that they've never really maybe understood as their previous generations did. And the gap was already widening to this point as they had greater work and educational and travel opportunities that that the much in the monkhood does not even tell that this has culminated into them. Just as I mentioned, the first couple months seems range of emotions. And then after April, they've just become a non entity. No, I talked to hundreds of Burmese activists and all kinds of ways that are engaged in all kinds of activities. And basically no one talks to me about the monks anymore. No one ever brings it up. No one cares when I bring it up. They don't have anything to say they kind of think I'm the weird foreigner, that why am I so focused on this and why is this something on my mind and at the same time, I know that their parents and the older generation still have that sense of reverence if might be hurt or confused or whatnot, but for the younger generation, they don't really see a point of even having that in the conversation anymore. Yeah,

Alan Senauke  1:00:00

I think that, if that's true that is going to somehow be rectified. is really still to be determined. It could be, but I'm not seeing any signs of it.

Host  1:00:21

Yeah, well, there are some pretty dynamic, progressive monastic leaders. But of course, they don't have freedom structurally Yes, I know. Right? Yeah, I agree with you completely. And, and, and also, it takes a certain it takes a very special kind of monk because a monk by constraints of their position, they cannot be a full activist, no one is calling for that they, they can't just wear the monk robes and do whatever they want. There's a certain kind of marriage you have to have, between your dedication to monastic discipline, and understanding the video and the rules and knowing with the limits inherent in the life that you've chosen, where can you engage? And where can you not, because you're not just free to do anything you want as a monk or a nun? Yeah, so I wanted to so we were talking a bit about the looking at engaged Buddhism, where it where it's existing or perhaps not existing in Myanmar now, your life has really been centered on many aspects of engaged Buddhism, largely in the West, I wonder if you can describe for listeners what engaged Buddhism means to you,

Alan Senauke  1:01:27

sure. Engage Buddhism, to me is a way of looking at the world, not through the eye of an individual, but through the eye of communities, and societies, and systems. So the suffering, we're very, most of the teaching that I've received, is very clear, in saying, not so much that I am suffering, but that there is suffering. However, many of the structures of our meditational tradition, and I'm focusing on that, in various traditions, attend to suffering at the level of individual activity and individual karma. And I think that from the perspective of engaged Buddhism, is one that sees that our societies are fluid, interdependence, and dynamic between individuals who are operating in the context of a system or systems, you actually almost always multiple systems. And so what we have are systems of suffering. And we can put names to them. You can talk about racism, or sexism, or any form of structural oppression, that is not simply the suffering of one individual or of an accumulation of essentially individuals, but is something that whole communities are whole groups of people experience broadly. And our cause to suffer from the systemic effects. And the other side of that is as participants in these systems, we don't necessarily see our individual agency in the proliferation of a system. And so everything goes along, in a, in a sense of with a sense of disconnect. So I think that engaged Buddhism, one way to look at it is really taking responsibility in the sense that each of us is completely responsible for everything that happens In the world, that's a broad expression. But by virtue of our participation in systems and this is very, you know, can be very simply described. If one gets in one's car, in one's gasoline powered car and goes out for a drive, we are making use as individuals, we're making use of resources that have been extracted from the earth, in other parts of the globe, and often extracted to, to the ends of great profit for the companies that are selling the oil, but but incredible oppression to the people who are, you know, who are working in the oil fields or digging in the coal mines. And we live our lives at the expense of there's so engaged Buddhism to me is really looking at the wide the wide picture, or the wide view of interdependence, and taking responsibility for it.

Host  1:06:40

Thank you, that's a great answer. I haven't heard it described quite in those terms. That's one of the most compelling definitions, I've heard of it, and gives me a number of reflections in different directions of how you were able to find it. going more into it, I want to pull from an interview you did a few years back with Richard McDaniel, there's one response you gave that I found really telling and how you describe this relationship between spiritual practice of awareness, where many practitioners began to see as largely internal, with this wider concern for others and the world. And in this interview, you said, what I mean by awakened as awakened activity, I mean, action that is premised on the oneness of our common humanity, thereby some fundamental kindness to respect that kindness doesn't always mean that everything's nice and gentle, but means seeing the all Pervasive Nature of Buddha's nature, and really challenging yourself when you're not seeing it, which certainly comes up a lot in our social world. Nonetheless, even if I'm not seeing it in relation to this person or this situation, how do I want to act? That's where I come back to knowing where my feet are? How do I want to act in the face of this, that, to me is enlightened activity, I tend to look at people or evaluate, if you will, on the basis of what they do, what they say and what they do. Because I don't really have any way of evaluating what type of meditative experiences they might have had. Also, I don't think that those experiences are necessarily transformative. Unquote. So later, you go on to quote, Bernie Glassman, who himself is quoting, Kobo, Daishi, a 19th century Japanese, and saying, maybe,

Alan Senauke  1:08:30

maybe I should have not been able to find I have searched high and low for that quotation and have not been able to find it,

Host  1:08:37

I see, I see. The quote that you're referring to is, one can tell the depth of a person's enlightenment by how they serve others and quote, which is really just those dozen words or so are the synthesis of the much longer quote where you were reflecting and chewing on this. So you'd mentioned how there was this terrific, unresolved tension for you, between the political causes for the day and 1960s and 70s, and your own inner practice. And yet, when I read this, this reflection, it seems to express this remarkably clear understanding of how these two have perhaps come together. So is it fair to say that this is somewhat of a resolution of that initial tension?

Alan Senauke  1:09:24

I guess you could say that. I mean, it just I didn't have access to, to these ideas. When I came to Buddhism. They weren't being spoken by many people. However, actually, the wonderful articulation of them was, was available as early as 1961 or 1962. From Gary Gary Snyder, where he wrote a piece called Buddha standard And he was he, he nailed it, you know. And that was there, I could have read that. But I wasn't seeing it in our centers. And I wasn't deep enough into Buddhism or into Buddhist practice to be able to, to really integrate those. And to go back to Manoir my experience from really spending time with quite a few of the Saffron Revolution monks, was their hearts were very much in the right place. But they did not have almost never met anybody who could express an integral view of Buddhism and society. And I think that that's something that engage Buddhists have been developing, not just here. It's been developing in different places in, in, in Asia as well. But, you know, certainly this is something that my circle of friends and all the people I would say, around international network of gates, Buddhists, would would have a fairly common understanding, although we might each articulate it differently. But just came to, you know, when I returned, when I really not returned, but really turned to Buddhism, after having been exposed in the late 60s, when I turned to it in the mid 80s. I think that this understanding was already was already around. And you know, certainly I heard it from I heard it from Aiken Roshi. I heard it from Joanna Macy. I heard it from Sue luxafor Roxa. From now on, it was very much it was it was an evolving perspective, that was clearly articulated.

Host  1:12:40

And as you retrace those movements, that you were involved in your past history, these progressive movements of the 1960s. And then there's, as they moved into the 1970s, they didn't entirely disavow non violence. And you yourself mentioned being involved in discussions where various forms of violence were bandied around, and activists were openly reflecting on if there were some cases where the means could justify the ends. But as someone who was waiting for the revolution, as you said, yourself, and yet also becoming very involved in Buddhist practice, how did you come to reconcile these questions of the coming revolution and the role of violence and yet your commitment to Buddhist practice at the same time?

Alan Senauke  1:13:29

Well, it came in two stages. The first was, I really came to the end of having any faith in. In a violent revolution. At one point, it seemed like a point of desperation. It seemed like that was the only answer. And to the extent that people made efforts in that direction, it didn't work. It was self destructive. It was destructive of others. And it stood no chance in the face of the massive repression that was mounted by US government. And I just ran to the wall, I said, and realize, actually, from internal reflection that this is not who I am. I wasn't sure who I was, but I knew that this was not what I wanted to do, or how I wanted to, to follow and to proceed. And as a hacker As a matter of fact, somebody that I knew from Colombia who followed the logic of his thinking and participated in, in an armed robbery in which three people were killed. He was just released on parole after 40 years in prison. So, there are other people I know, there are people I know who, who died in long factories. people I know, personally, who went to prison for long years, and then there's, there's so many people of color who were murdered for political reasons, who repressed whose lives were destroyed. And it was clear to me that this was not going to be a path for the transformation of this society.

Host  1:16:16

Right and looking at the situation now in Myanmar, looking at the state of terror that's there, I first want to ask you a question that is more or less identical to the question that I asked Bhikkhu Bodhi on that podcast and I frame this question in advance by acknowledging the difficulty and the sensitivity in it. It's the kind of question where very likely there aren't any right answers. And so I'm not asking this to put you on the spot to come up with something that is is not is probably not going to be very good one way or the other, but more as a open reflection about an actual life situation that people are being faced with now, and understanding where Buddhist values and discipline fits into that. So, before my conversation with Bhikkhu, Bodhi, I surveyed my audience to ask what questions they had for him. And not surprisingly, there was an overwhelming number of questions that were inquiring about the role of harm at this moment where many believe that they're approaching a kill or be killed type of scenario. And looking at this question is not really as black and white as one might think, at first glance. Because short of killing there are a wide range of methods from self defense to diversionary techniques to threats to sabotage, provoking mild injuries, before one gets into strict non violence and pacifism of any kind. And I'm now in touch with many dedicated practitioners in Myanmar, who have had to contemplate things they would never have done in a million years never have expected to people who have been careful in their lives never even to harm a mosquito. And when they've killed an ant accidentally, they immediately send metta and retake the five precepts then in there. So what what are your general thoughts of looking at where non violence has played a role in your life and the way you've seen societal change in your own Buddhist practice? Understanding that that's happened within an American context, which is someone American context and making 60s Which would would not exactly line up to me and Mark 2021 and of the last seven years of aside from a brief transition period of having a terrible military dictatorship, what would you say generally as a guidance or a reflection to a Buddhist who's now facing these terrible circumstances there

Alan Senauke  1:18:43

we can all meet is a expression in my tradition one can only see as far as once I have practice reaches. So first of all, I would say my opinion is just my opinion. And it's I'm far removed from the circumstance and so I'm, I'm not evaluating or preaching in any way. This is a question that face me and face many of us who were involved with, with Burma and elsewhere. I reckon with this question in the 1990s. When you had the organization of well, the continuing organization because they already existed of as the economy He's kind of also sort of pan, not Pan Ethnic, but diverse military organizations who had organizations like the on premise student Democratic Front. And they were involved in armed resistance, in some cases in military actions. And my feeling at the time was, it was not for me to criticize them. I also didn't feel that I wanted to be part of any supply training for their actions. But I supported direct aid for the population, direct medical aid, to whomever needed it without distinguishing between a combatant and non combatant, in fact, without distinguishing about that on either side. So nowadays is my button concern is it's, it's kind of like what we experienced in the late 60s and early 70s. These are activities of principle, they are their protest and, you know, quasi quasi armed, or even guerrilla activities that are flowing from a sense of loss about what to do, and a great, great injury to those populations. Hmm, and so I can understand it. Because other methods approaches, to one extent haven't been proliferated within communities, but to understand they're not working. I don't think that, you know, I mean, people, there have been ethnic groups I've been fighting wars with, with the tatmadaw for 50 or 60 years. And, you know, it's just a it's just a historical accumulation of losses. And there's been no, no victory, no concession. And the predominance of arms is in the hands of the government. And you have old, the very large army, they're very well trained, and they're completely willing to obey and direct that violence against their own people. That's very hard to combat. I think that the combat I'd like to see in as I guess, I'd like to see the country brought to a halt. And I'd like to see the external pressures, coordinated, you know, from those of us outside from nations outside, really, really clearly coordinated with the internal mechanisms of non cooperation or social change. That I would hope I think that's what's going to be effective in the long run. So, what I said about once practice, when once, activities only reaching gently going, as far as one the eye of practice can see, you know, what you have in many places, is a disciplined and trained a manifestation of direct non violence and when I say direct non violence, it's distinct from Just kind of passive resistance, which is a word that we heard when we were younger. It's active resistance. And this has consequences both on those who are acting upon, but also has consequences on oneself. It means, in a sense, taking the same kinds of risks that that a militant soldier would. But it holds to the value of non retaliation. My question is whether that is an effective tactic in an environment that so far has been very reluctant to limit the violence that will oppose impose on its own people.

Host  1:26:01

It's very hard to imagine non violence working in Nazi Germany or North Korea or against Imperial Japanese Army.

Alan Senauke  1:26:08

That's that. Exactly, exactly. Whereas, to some degree, and it's a dubious question, historically, whether non violence was really effective in India? Yeah, I'm not sure. Or whether this is just the ties into time and the empire crumbled, and couldn't hold on to it. It's recognized, it just couldn't support structure in India. And so they split. You know, that's one example. But there are places where you have really powerful models of non violence. But in all those places, they were seemed like there were some degree limits upon the violence that the state was willing to use.

Host  1:26:58

Yeah. Yeah. Well, the state had a different methodology, those South Africa and England and British colonial England. And you ask, these did not espouse fascist ideology. they espouse something different. So even though there were many imperfections and hypocrisy is within what they said. And what they did, there was at least to fall back on what they said they want it to be that created that opening where non violence could show something to them back, but the fascist ideology just has received non violence as just pure weakness and something to be exploited and routed out. And I've also read studies that we're looking at Mandela and Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that there were parallel violent movements that were striving for the same thing. And as those societies were reaching a tipping point, and cracking and breaking apart, the nonviolent activists were much more appealing to the majority group that wanted, they saw reason to work with them. And so it's really somewhat inaccurate, this argument goes to look back and say, Oh, these movements won because they were non violent. And this is such a pure principle that it was actually there was a more complicated contextual situation going on, that without which these non violent movements even in a non fascist ideology, couldn't have been successful.

Alan Senauke  1:28:22

That's correct. Whether it was open the windows it openly coordinated strategy, which I don't think there was no. But what you had were, to some degree, parallel tracks of activism. And what became clear in certain circumstances was, you know, if you don't get this, you get this. Yeah. And I think that that's, that's possibly true in Myanmar, at the same time, as I'm not going to attack it, but it's not where my support lies. And it's not where our souls long, you know, it's not the kind of aid that I feel. I can participate in providing military aid, you know. And maybe that's a maybe that's shaping to find a far a point. But it's a place where we, where one has to make choices about where one's action, or funds go. At the same time is, you know, I've been very careful. You know, I'm not publicly wouldn't publicly criticize. It was just Since movement, and and also, I wouldn't say that there are no circumstances under which I would take up a weapon. Can't say that.

Host  1:30:19

And then there is a distinction between the kind of personal support to a supportive understanding of listening of non judgmental of, of hearing where someone got to what they got to and, and giving them a space to be able to share that, and having some line with what financially is actually supported. And as you were talking before, I just thought of your definition of engaged Buddhism. And that just came to mind, because when you're talking about engaged Buddhism, you're talking about your definition took responsibility, not just for your actual actions, but for the system that you were living in, and that intentionally or unintentionally, that you were supporting in some way. And what I mean by that is, when you look at history, a lot of us living in free societies today are enjoying this privilege, because people that came before us past through very bloody conflicts to get here. I think if you want to take the nearest example, you look at France, and you look at like, what did those French resistance fighters in World War Two have to do to secure freedom for their country? How much blood do they have on their hands? How many innocents did they sacrifice? How many mistakes did they make? What kind of trauma did they have to live with? Just a couple generations ago, so France could could eventually get free of this evil.

Alan Senauke  1:31:39

It's also true, I think that the so called bad guys, of the tatmadaw. Or the sisters, or the, or the brothers and sons of the people isn't just as a as of the monks, the monks and the tatmadaw of the two largest institutions in Myanmar. And I really wonder and do not know, what efforts are made and what efforts are possible to actually bring elements of the military into awareness of the consequences of their actions. I can't but think that that many of the of the rank and file soldiers are terribly conflicted about this. But we don't know. But I want to I'd like to come back to something. I there was a there was a piece that Biko voting wrote in an issue of enquiring mind that I co edited, it was on war and peace, the issue was very interesting. Interesting. Accumulation of articles and perspective said, in this column, which was, which was very unusual, would be cool bowtie said was, is a small one window of circumstance under which he could imagine the use of force. And this, you know, then resulted in a very sharp debate between him and Ajanta Neisseria. The circumstance that Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed to was the lead up to World War Two, which was relatively long, relatively slow. And at a number of critical points. Hitler tested the other nations of Europe about how far he could go. Going into the Rhineland going into Czechoslovakia going into Poland,

Meredith  1:34:41

each step and what

Alex  1:34:45

what he could vote he was saying was, he could have been stopped by military action in one or another of those four ace

Alan Senauke  1:34:57

PA and it was a failure of will a vision of understanding what was happening that led to the complete conflagration, which was disastrous on a scale that we couldn't understand. And what he was saying was that there's a place in which people, which nations could have intervened and saved, saved us from Armageddon. And, of course, Argentina, Cicero said, this is completely not permitted in the context of the Dharma. And I'm not sure that that's actually true. Because if you look at the Dharma, speaking of the duties of kings, one of the duties of Kings is, is actually defense. So maybe the Sangha would not be expected to participate in this, but other people might. So through I'm just, I'm just reminded of that now. I'm curious what was because both Bhikkhu Bodhi his answer to your question,

Host  1:36:20

putting me on the spot, after remember, he, you know, it actually the answer that I can give you is, it's ongoing. I asked him various versions of that same question. And he wrestled with it in real time for 90 minutes and showed, in my opinion, enormous courage for being able to, from his position, speak on something in which he was not going to get it right, because no one can get it right. And you're just going to open yourself up, and he knew he was doing that. But he, he was engaging in that reflection, because it was so important to bring the Dhamma into a practical experience. And we are going to have a follow up discussion where he is going to continue to reflect and to go back and forth on these and and to refine himself.

Alan Senauke  1:37:08

And, you know, it's one of the reasons that I deeply respect him is that he doesn't take easy positions. He doesn't fall back on the doctrinaire Yes. Um, but I do not have a conclusive answer to that. I think, you know, this, in a sense, it, it's, it's kind of contradicting what I said earlier about engaged Buddhism. Because it, it falls back. I have to come back to what what I do. Yeah. and reflect on what, what would I do what, where does my training lead me? And where personally, am I willing to act? How am I willing to have

Host  1:38:20

I've referenced this on other episodes, but I was listening to a podcast with with Tom Hanks of all people who's a world war two aficionado, and he was referencing a historian he read that was describing the French Resistance. This is when all society is broken down, evil has come and occupied your land, and everything is in disarray. And he was quoting this historian by saying that, at this time, all French people had a choice of who they were going to become, and you had to be one of these three people, you were going to be a hero, a coward or a bad guy, there was no middle ground. And I think and that that's a really astounding thing to step back and consider that when you're forced into this kind of corner where you don't have any other option, and you're gonna have to choose one of these. I think that this is what for those of us that are away from this conflict, this is the respect and the distance we need to have is that, as you said, Who would you become in the situation? That is what Burmese people are learning today? Who are they becoming when faced with this? I don't know if I would be a hero, a coward or a bad guy. I I can't say that until I'm in that position. And all I can do from this position is to support those that are making the courageous and honorable decisions in their life and to also stand back and respect that decision making process and something that I've never faced and hope I never well.

Alan Senauke  1:39:50

Well, I think to some extent, that was the question that saints does, or that we felt I felt faced us in the late 19 Six These early 70s. Right? And, you know, people took various radical steps. And they may have been foolish. But they were not. They were not motivated by cowardice. And to some extent it was courageous, it may have been misguided. True.

Host  1:40:36

Yeah, for the last topic I want to bring up with you is kind of the other side of the coin of this dilemma. So we're talking now about what some may determine overreach of different Buddhist principles and perhaps a awaited response in the world as opposed to practice. And now let's look at the other side of that, which is what has been called spiritual bypass, where one is so into their own practice in the internal reality that they are not so responsive to conditions. I spoke last year to Clyde Ford, he's a meditator who was also an anti racism trainer. And he has done a lot of work on spiritual bypass and the the passionate community, he defined the terms as, quote, using spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds or social injustices. I'm curious if you're familiar with the term spiritual bypass, and if so, how you have observed it manifest among spiritual communities you've been a part of? Well,

Alan Senauke  1:41:43

yeah, of course, I'm familiar with it. And I would agree with that. I would agree with that definition, pretty much. I think that you know, often where we see it, is in a kind of, it's not, it's not just in a social context, it's often it's often in an individual context, where people allow their practice to cover for the work that they need to be doing on themselves. And, to me, that work implies working within society. But even where we're doesn't in, you know, in a, in one or another Buddhist context, it's, you know, it's invoking some idea of the Dharma, so that you can avoid dealing with what's right in front in front of your eyes. So it's actually, you know, one of the things that that I've been thinking about for, for a number of years is, you know, we have this whole mindfulness movement, right. In America, it's, it's still really very much alive. And I think the common understanding of it is, mindfulness has as an expression of bare awareness. And to me, that's really missing. We look at the four foundations of mindfulness, the fourth foundation of mindfulness is mindfulness of the dormice, right. These are mindfulness of Dharma systems, the eightfold path, the Four Noble Truths, factors of enlightenment, the hindrances and so forth. And what this means is you you put on you, you put on these systems, as if you were putting on a pair of glasses that allowed you to see more clearly. And that brought things into focus. The spiritual bypass is putting on blinders so that you really can't see what's in front of you. Does that make any sense? Does that make any sense?

Host  1:44:55

Yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It does. I think and I think that's getting At something of the transmission of how the practice has carried over to the west, and this is what's made me reflect is that fair unfair in my circles, especially these days, when the crisis in Myanmar so acute, I have to say I'm aware meditators don't generally have the best of reputations, and that they've expressed concern that they find these Yogi's to be more selfish, on average, more focused on their personal needs, such as wanting to find idealized practice environments and focus increasingly attention on their own meditation objects, than the real issues before them and others. And this can kind of encourage a cold detachment from the reality that is confronting us. And those few meditators I know that have chose to engage to basically had to divorce themselves from their spiritual communities and teachers and companions. What I'm trying to say is that it's interesting that this kind of behavior has seemed to happen enough among Western practitioners, that it has become a kind of trope. It's something that people expect and gets remarked on fairly commonly, in conversations, I have this kind of inward, navel gazing, new Ager, whose own issues and concerns always need to come first. And if anything, kind of the most egregious example, I can think of, are those foreign practitioners that I know whose only commentary on the situation in Myanmar is the sadness that they can't come to take the pilgrimage or meditation course they had planned and hope they can do so soon. So my question for you is, how have you found that the transmissions of teachings that have come into the west over the years, in terms of developing greater compassion, a sense of service, the mindfulness revolution, but it's actually in some way seems to be reaffirming selfish attitudes, where one's own personal needs continue to be prioritized? Even if those take a different shape over these matters outside the self? So how can you put these localized examples into a greater historical context of how the teachings have come and settled in the West?

Alan Senauke  1:47:10

Well, I, I actually see such a vast difference in a positive way, of the evolving Buddhist community in the West, really different from say, when I came to Buddhist peaceful, I should 1991. And what I see is a much broader awareness of social issues. And certainly, in the last five or 10 years, a much deeper wrestling with issues of race and diversity, and how that fits with the Dharma in this country. Ha, you know, that that's really, I see that as development. And I also see it is it's just the beginning of it. Because we're still in the process of looking at the, again, this is an engaged Buddhist perspective, looking at the structural elements that support a status quo of of privilege of white privilege, if you will, male privilege. Those are being chipped away at. But there's so much work to do to actually change and diversify and democratize the structures of our of our centers or our institutions. So that work is happening someplace not happening in other places. It's very uneven, but it's happening in a way that it absolutely was not happening. You know, in 1991, just very few people will have these kinds of weirdnesses. So I feel encouraged by that. I think that people who are looking to Myanmar, or Thailand or Japan, as the places they have to go in order to really do the practice. I think they're just highly diluted and And it's another form, it's a form of what my teachers, my teachers railed against gaining idea. And it's a gaining idea, you know, to feel, have to go to Burma to get the authentic practice. Well, the authentic practice that you're going to get in Burma is already a revisionist practice. Because that was shaped in dialogue with forces of colonialism. It's not, you know, it's not the tradition, it's just we, we, we back interpret this idea of tradition and idealize it, when, you know, tradition can be very destructive. Or it can be, it certainly could be ambiguous. Um, I remember having a very, pretty sharp argument with a very close friend whom, who I love and respect. When this person wanted to go to practice that one of the meditation centers in Yangon, this was must have been in 1997, or 98. And I said, I just didn't feel like that was the right thing to do. And they did it and had a very mixed experience. But you know, I, I think in the men in, we don't go to, we can't go to a meditation place in the middle of a war. And maybe that applies as well, here. It certainly applies if what you do is you have your eyes closed, to the war that's all around us. If there's an effort to include that include the violence and suffering in society, in our practice, which I think is something that I see many teachers trying to do, then there's something more creative happening.

Host  1:52:46

Yeah, in my own experience, these past nine months or so I've observed a wide range of spiritual bypass that's taking place since the coup, I actually wrote an article for tricycle about these reflections. And there were three categories identified. I think these are not exact categories. They're just where my observations fit into. And since I've become aware, I think I'd probably add a few more to this after writing it. But of these three, the first was this misguided belief that because any leadership in Myanmar would be Buddhist, and would protect the Dhamma. meditators and monastics don't need to play any supportive role in what one can essentially just regard as a political matter. That's the first form of spiritual bypass of why one doesn't need to be concerned or focus on this. The second form I've seen is that really the the best and the only form of support that meditators should be providing at this time is to sit on the cushion and send metta. And the third form is that because the various Buddhist teachings and lineages have already been sufficiently exported outside of Myanmar, and primarily to the west and elsewhere, it's kind of like an unfortunate worldly scenario, what's going on, but we're not really in any concern of, of losing any Buddhist practice or meditative tradition, because we've already taken what we need and established our own authentic communities elsewhere. Some might even argue that those those exported communities are better in some ways. But in any case, I wonder what you think about these observations? And if you've witnessed examples of spiritual bypass taking place during the current crisis?

Alan Senauke  1:54:32

Well, I mean, what I always feel is that we have we have this limitless debt to the teachers in our ancestors, who sustained the practice and the ones who brought the practice here from from Myanmar and Thailand, from, from Japan, from China, from Korea and so forth, we owe them everything. Because without their effort, we would not have an authentic we would not have had an authentic encounter with the Dharma. And they gave their lives in many cases, they do really burn themselves up entirely to to transmit the Dharma to us and our debt to them. Which goes back to the country that they're the countries that they come from is endless. All of those examples that you told me, You're just egregious examples of spiritual bypass. They're not seeing the world as it is. And they're not seeing that. They are participants. They can be participants in systems of liberation, or participants in systems of oppression. It's, it's your choice. This is where one does have an individual choice. So you can't just step back.

Host  1:56:38

Thank you for that. Thank you for this conversation. It's just been wonderful. I want to close with just a final question that is away from some of the harder things I've lobbed at you and just more your personal experience with Myanmar, which you've talked about a bit in some of your answers. But just more personally speaking, I wonder if you can share a bit with the listeners about how you've been impacted by being a practitioner who's come into contact with Burmese monks who's taken pilgrimages in Myanmar has gone to monasteries, and pursued meditation there, as the country and society are going through such a difficult time now, just to hear somewhat of a warm a reflection of appreciation and gratitude for those influences that you've been able to enjoy and benefit from, based on how the practice has been maintained to this point.

Alan Senauke  1:57:35

There is a a beauty to the country that is extremely varied. There's so many different landscapes and cultures there. And that's been just a source of wonder for me. And a I think one thing that I really see and appreciate is a kind of immediacy and responsiveness of people and in every region that that I've been to very open certainly with access to enjoy for the most part but open that's that's not necessarily a characteristic of every society. And I've appreciated that openness and brightness. You know, there's a high level of intelligence. There's human and I just feel like I've been privileged to have some experience of this and I certainly have experienced it to some degree within, within monastic communities. I've given up on it i utilization of, of monastics prickly idealization of monks, but still, there are many who are just, they just give you know, they serve as we go back to Kobo Daishi. The, the mark of a person's enlightenment is in how they serve If that's the case, then there are many enlightened monks and people in Myanmar. So I've seen so much wonderful service to children to the poor, to each other. And I feel very fortunate to have encountered that. It's also true that I've encountered such enormous suffering and grief. And that stays with me as well. It's a cloud I'd like to I'd like to see just blown away not only being let's not talk about why, why this has happened or how this has happened. But it certainly has happened and didn't needs to be a unification of the society. And a fundamental to really dig into the teachings of the Buddha a fundamental acceptance of the equality of all beings. That's what I wish for. And I I see there are people who, who I feel really concede this. And obviously there are people who can't

Host  2:01:52

Oh, thank you. That's, that's beautiful. And I've really enjoyed this conversation that's explored so many different backgrounds of your biography and practice and intersect in what's going on in Myanmar and different spiritual communities in both societies. And is there anything else that we haven't touched upon or something that you've reflected on later that you want to share before we close?

Alan Senauke  2:02:18

Yeah, it would be okay. I'd like to, to offer a dedication of

Host  2:02:22

merit. Oh, yeah, that that'd be wonderful.

Alan Senauke  2:02:26

In this stormy world of impermanence. This world of discrimination and pandemic of love and joy. We dedicate the merit of our practice and our conversation to the awakening of peoples and communities around the world. May all beings be free from suffering. May all beings be well. May all beings be at peace.

2:03:16

Slack No. No man song me. So brandy, no, go on Doris Carson go.

Host  2:03:44

After today's discussion, it should be clear to everyone just how dire the situation is in Myanmar. We are doing our best to shine a light on the ongoing crisis. And we thank you for taking the time to listen. If you found today's talk of value, please consider passing it along to friends in your network. And because our nonprofit is now in a position to transfer funds directly to the protest movement, please also consider letting others know that there is now a way to give that supports the most vulnerable and to those who are specially impacted by this organized state terror. If you would like to join in our mission to support those in Myanmar who are resisting the military coup. We welcome your contribution in any form, currency or transfer method. Every cent because immediately and directly to funding those local communities who need it most. donations go to support such causes as a civil disobedience movement CVM families of deceased victims, and the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies. Or if you prefer, you can earmark your donation to go directly to the guests you just heard on today's show. In order to facilitate this donation work, we have registered a new nonprofit called Better Burma for this express purpose. Any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is now directed to the fund. Alternatively, you can visit our new better Burma website, which is better Burma one word.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause, and both websites accept credit cards. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we can take donations through Patreon Venmo, GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either website for specific links to those respective accounts, or email us at info at better burma.org. In all cases, that's better Burma. One word, spelled b e t t e r b u r Ma. If you would like to give it another way, please contact us. Thank you so much for your kind consideration.

2:06:00

Chien Ubers