Bhante Nandiya

At Santi Monastery we had our "Jhanathon" on new years eve, that is, an all night sit. I personally thought of it as more of a "Māra-thon".

One thing we did, was write down on a piece of paper what we wanted to leave behind in 2011, and we put the pieces of paper in a bowl. At midnight, Bhante Sujato burnt the paper.

What I wrote is "I want to leave behind Ajahn X, Ajahn Y, and Wat Pah Pong". The precise identity of the Ajahn's is not important! Truly, this has been one of the most defining struggles of my life gone-forth. The inner conflict which is, the tradition I love, but can't stand. Another way of putting it "Can't live with them, can't live without them", but that's not actually functional.

What is clear is that my future has to involve equality within the Sangha. And I think "involve" might be too weak a word, perhaps "embody" would be better. I'm sick and tired of crap.

My grievance against Ajahn X, Ajahn Y and Wat Pah Pong goes way beyond women's ordination. But that might be the irreconcilable issue which requires going our separate ways for now.

Part of the challenge for me is essentially forging a new identity, an identity not rooted in tradition, but in the brave new frontier.

And it's interesting for me, being one of a new generation of monks raised on text critical comparative studies. It is normal within the traditions, to take the Buddha's word as if it's written in stone. This obviously has an emotional significance, providing a sense of security and certainty in an uncertain world.
In a way this is nothing new. After all, Ajahn Brahm was one who overthrew popular buddhist gospel by delving into the pali canon. Thus I am very much being true to the tradition of Ajahn Brahm.

It's a strange thing, to almost consciously forge an identity, saying "And this will be a part of it, and this and that, but not that...". It does seem that we need to have a healthy foundation for our emotional well-being, and I believe this is not incompatible with the Buddha's teaching on anatta (non-self) and sakkāyadiṭṭhi (personality view). It is compatible with the Buddha's teaching on right effort, that is, an effort to develop those things which are beneficial and abandon those things which aren't. Right effort isn't about being nothing, it's about being healthy. Atta and sakkāyadiṭṭhi are bound up with rigidity and are thus opposed to right effort (right effort almost means "right change!"). And often the most important thing, is the understanding of mental and emotional processes. It's not about treating self-formation as something to be torn down and destroyed, but rather as something to be understood through-and-through.

So if I were to say, what do I want to be a part of my sense of identity? My valued teachers such as Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Bramhali and Bhante Sujato. Being someone who strives for equality and acceptance. And what do I want to not be a part of my sense of identity? Wat Pah Pong. That's not to say that they can't still be my friends though, just that having too much emotional investment is an impractical way to live. Obvious really, but still hard.