Buddhist Philosophy

Compassion and forgiveness top the list. It made me question: If compassion is integral to Buddhism, then how is it possible to attain detachment? When love is an emotion, how can we detach from it when it is the very food of our souls?

David and I had met a couple of cheeky 12 year olds who had the key to one of the temples at the top of the monastery. They were boys. Snotty noses, dirty feet, cheeky smiles. Training for monks can begin at an early stage in life, in some cases, they are as young as four, and for a number of reasons: they are sent to the monasteries by impoverished Buddhist families; if there is more than one son in the family, they often feel it is the duty of at least one of them to dedicate his life to Buddhism; or most commonly, it is because the fate of the boy has been written in the “Janam Kundali” - a birth chart that reveals not just the details of the child's previous life, but current and future lives too. I had met Tenzin (they all seem to have this name) in Disksit, just across the Nubra Valley, the world's highest motorable pass. He told me that he had been a monk in his previous life, and because he was an only son in this life, his fate was to take care of his parents, get married and bear children.

I have tried to understand the stoic nature of Buddhism. I appreciate even, the path that can lead to true enlightenment. However, I could not help but question: Isn't it better for a monk to be a monk because he arrived at that conclusion for himself? Shouldn't an individual be entitled to discover the world and life for themselves before making a decision like this? Does it mean that all those who are not monks, are living sinful lives? Is it really wrong to love, be loved, indulge in sex, drugs and rock n' roll? As human beings, do we not have needs? If we deny ourselves of those needs, does this not create unsavoury situations? Isn't repression a dangerous thing for our society? Priests and small boys? Buddhist monks and pregnant nuns?

Square table discussion with David
Padum is cold by night, so following dinner at our local dhaba, a tipple is just the tonic you need to warm you up. David and I went for a drink at our local watering hole and ended up having a square table discussion, on paper.

Me: The world we live in feeds our ego. Loving with our egos gets in the way of our relationships. Unselfish, unconditional love, letting someone go if you love them – whether they are friend, foe, brother, sister or lover. This is Buddhism. So does this mean Buddhism is a supporter of “free love”? Should we not learn to live and love the pleasures of life without ego when the pleasures of life are food for the soul?

David: You are a bad influence on people. Alcohol and narcotics should be consumed with... MODERATION. Fleeing life's problems doesn't work. Meditation, compassion and moderation does. So NEEEUGHHH! You have a sinful devil inside, exorcism is required!

Me: Pleasures in life are food for the soul!

David: Excess pleasures are the food for destroyers of the soul.

Me: Denying yourself of pleasure makes your life a living sin. So enjoy yourself and be free!

David: Crap. The greatest pleasures require dedication, commitment, self-discipline and dedication. Only the “blind” seek solace in simple pleasures, that in fact, deny us true, lasting and genuine pleasure.

Me: Who says we can't have the best of both worlds? Divine, spiritual and “simple” - when everything is nothing anyway; and nothing is everything in the petty lives that we try to make the most of?

David: Always seeking the easy answer, the easy path, using nothingness as a reason to self-destruct. If nothing has any meaning or value, then one should value and strive for the few things in life that allow us to transcend nothingness. Don't be so mediocre!

Me: What is mediocre about living? About living in the moment, about being in the present, about the power of NOW, about living in the NOW?! About taking the best of all philosophies, religions, schools of thought, teachings and substances of thought? What's wrong with life and taking the best from it? As long as you are AWARE and conscious enough to progress and are doing whatever it takes in the process?

David: Because simple pleasures are for simple people. You are not simple. Stop denying the fact and seeking diluted philosophies to your contradictions in things that do not apply to you. You are capable of more complexity, of embarking on a deeper, spiritual and more personal path in life. Why be so normal?

Me: Who says “simple” is “normal”? To be “simple” is a bias of the mind, it is a subjective view. As individuals we have our own minds and perspectives on reality. What is reality? It is a creation of your mind. It is a very personal thing. So there is nothing wrong with living by your own rules – as long as those rules do not harm anyone or anything. And as long as you are aware of your own conscious mind. I am my own Buddhist.

David: Buddhist! If you accept to harm yourself, you have no compassion for yourself. Without being compassionate to oneself, we cannot be compassionate to others. Have you harmed yourself, ever?

Me: I have been extremely self-destructive in my life – however, looking back, I know the reasons why. Recognising these reasons is more than half the battle. Learning to love yourself, forgive the Self while maintaining an awareness of your actions - is one of the main keys to achieving higher consciousness. I can and have established this, even while enjoying the “simple” fruits of life. So why have any rules? (When the rules are dictated by the life you have lived and your willingness and ability to learn from it)?

David: Rules are nothing more than wisdom acquired through experience. When they are self-imposed, they are not rules but the application of that wisdom, the ability to learn through one's mistakes and not constantly repeat the same errors that lead to an unsatisfied life. Why rebel against one's own wisdom?

Me: (bit tipsy now)
No one is rebelling against one's own wisdom. Depending on the phase of your life (a stage that you have arrived at as a result of your own actions) – you are not rebelling against yourself, but vibing with the progression of your own individual life. We arrive on this earth alone (from what we have gathered). We die and disintegrate and spread into a million different DNA, molecules, amoeba. As a result, we are ONE and the same – yet the same special quality arises in our one and individual method in dealing with life. Making it special. Making it enjoyable. Which is why we make our own rules. In a state of awareness of course.

David: Rebel without a cause!

Me: A cause. A course.

David: No cause, a rebel for rebellion's sake!

Me: WHAT IS REBELLION?

David: Doing what you know is not good for you.

Me: Who says and what dictates what is good for you or not? People worship shit in this world. They worship animal excrement as a statement that there is life in everything. Is that good or bad? And by doing from what you learn, you transcend and reach the unknown! How do you know what is good and what is bad?

David: The unknown is inside, in your DNA, everywhere.

Me (a little slurred): THAT IS WHY WE ARE ONE!

David: So no need to destroy oneself in order to discover it!

Me (always have to try and have the last word): Without destruction, there is no creation!

I love my friend David. He's one of my most favourite people in this world. I'm really going to miss him when we go our separate ways on this journey. I guess everything comes to an end at some point or other. Nothing lasts forever. Detachment from people and things is a tool that protects us. Perhaps the Buddhists have got it right after all? Still, I am not so sure about Buddhist philosophy. I believe in love and in enjoying the fruits of life. I guess it's something that I need to investigate further.

Full power Buddhist prayer
David and I entered the prayer hall and sat on the floor. The monks were in full power action, chanting and reciting their prayers, dressed in traditional robes and towering hats, the head Gheshe La perched above the rest in a colourful gown. He looked like a larger than life laughing Buddha. It was only later that we realised that he was a lot thinner than we had initially thought, the weight of his costume giving the illusion of a larger man.

Climbing the steps of the monastery, we discovered a medley of different rooms, each one distinctly different. Climbing to the top, we discovered restoration work had been going on and climbed through the half-dilapidated building to the very top of the monastery to see the view across the whole valley. We could see green pastures that stretched out from Karsha to Padum and to other villages such as Zangla. The unforgiving, harsh and dry terrain is difficult to farm and we marvelled at the strength of the villagers who work the land.

An audience with the Gheshe La
We met Lauren on the way down, accepting immediately her invitation for a cup of tea. Entering a warm, cosy, bright room, we sat on the floor for a private audience with the head monk, otherwise known as the Gheshe La. It was the same Laughing Buddha that we had seen in the prayer hall some hours earlier. His face was warm and friendly, his eyes kind and features soft and round. He took off his hat and almost re-appeared, magically, as a different man. A Spanish woman, Imani, who I had met in Goa some eight months back, had joined us with her French photographer partner. She was all sweetness and light. It was nice to see her again, yet she was spilling with challenges for the Gheshe La, arguing that Buddhism does not allow us as individuals to enjoy the fruits of life. That denying ourselves of simple pleasures is like denying ourselves of life. Lauren translated, sometimes hesitating at the translation of questions posed by Imani.

Gheshe La's hand had been savaged by the monastery dog when he had accidentally stepped on the angry animal's tail. He'd covered the vicious wound with a bit of plaster. David, Lauren and I insisted he allow us to clean it, apply medicine and wrap a bandage around it. He refused and was surprisingly stubborn, which made us laugh. Lauren translated that de didn't want to conduct puja with a bandage on his hand the next day. “Vanity or what!” I retorted cheekily. We all laughed uncontrollably, until he finally allowed David to put his nursing skills to the test.

We attended puja the following day and saw the bandage on his hand, David noticing with pride, the details of his handiwork adorned by the revered holy man.

Monks versus Nuns
Monks, we noticed, have a slight lack of hygiene, especially in comparison to nuns. We'd been to the DorjeZon Nunnery and noticed the difference then. David took photographs of snotty young monks, with their dirty finger nails and soiled feet. There were some hot monks too in their early twenties, while some as young as seven ran riot around the place. It was amusing to see. A teenage monk prepared butter candles, another two stood on the roof, blowing horns to call the rest for lunch, while another monk took care of preparations within the prayer hall. In the meantime, an insane old monk walked round in circles at the entrance hall, muttering away to himself, eyes darting in every which direction. It was an interesting experience.

To be or not to be a monk?
A number of questions came to mind:
In accordance to living up to Buddhist philosophy, shouldn't a monk have a chance to “defeat” all other so-called “freedoms” of life before he dedicates his life to the monastery?

How can an individual make the commitment if he hasn't experienced other things in life?

Isn't it better for a person to decide for themselves as opposed to carrying out monk duties simply out of obligation?

Apart from the economic relief that sending a son to a monastery brings, the future of a child is dependent upon the “Janam Kundalini” - a birth chart that tells of the child's past life, present and even future life. So what factors of the Janam Kundalini determine the future of a child? How is this decided?

What if a child monk grows up to change his mind? Maybe he wants to explore the world before deciding on the path that he feels is right for him?

Wouldn't someone who has reached a state of consciousness for himself/herself have more substance as a monk/nun in comparison to one who is simply fulfilling his duties out of obligation?

Buddhist philosophy – comprises detachment from humans and material things. However, it means denying ourselves of our most basic human needs – sex included. Isn't this in itself a form of repression? How can this contribute to a positive society?

A person who smokes, drinks, takes drugs – a bad person? What about people who worship shit?

Do we all need to become monks to reach enlightenment?

Is it possible to love, be loved and be successful in life without being egotistical?

Why is detachment so fundamental?

These and many more questions came to mind as David and I roamed through the Buddhist monasteries of Zanskar and admired the remnants of an ancient tradition that still stood tall and proud, if not a little dilapidated.

Zanskar is a special place with a unique energy. It's like stepping into a medieval world with potent ties to the past. It's a place that embraces the future, yet continues to live by the traditions of its past. On a social level, its people are one of a kind. They are beautiful people with a kind, calm aura; people of the land that exist to maintain their way of life. It's another world is Zanskar, and effectively like stepping into another country. The wonders of India. They just never cease.