Religious robes, no matter how beautifully made, can offer us no refuge. Such vestments cannot protect us from the horror of rebirth, always beholding something we are not. In spite of this, many act as if the outer forms of Buddhism are somehow capable of acting as a refuge. In fact, we find ourselves giving deference to those who wear robes, not because they are wise or have obtained the fruits of stream entry or genuine Bodhisattvahood, but because they wear the vestments of Buddhism. Such a tendency is not the fault of Buddhism but the fault of those who believe, so to speak, the clothes make the man. This leads to a further problem—a problem with clergy Buddhism.
We must keep in mind that the Buddha once said, “A man is not easily known by outward form nor should one trust a quick appraisal” (S. i. 79). Taking this one step further, clergy Buddhism or clergy Zen is exactly the practice of Buddhism through the outward form, putting our trust in the words of those who wear robes, not in the true teaching (saddharma). But such people who are the clergy, using the Buddha’s words, might well be like a bronze halfpense coated with gold. Also, what they teach us could be like rat meat served on the finest china dinnerware.
Clergy Buddhism is where the major entrance to deception begins in which we get Buddhism wrong. This happens, I need to say, not because all Buddhist clergy are deceivers but because we lack the maturity to distingusish between real gold and a halfpense coated with gold. The fault, I dare say, lies somewhat with us. We support clergy Buddhism because we are too lazy to look beyond the glitter that surely is not gold as we believe it is.
Traditionally, becoming a Buddhist monk or nun only afforded one the time to unravel the Buddha’s recondite teachings—nothing more. Nobody became wiser by donning robes. Any layperson or a hermit/rishi living in a cave can win nirvana with a great deal of effort and open-mindedness. It is not the exclusive property of clergy.
While the old discourses of the Buddha tend to glorify the importance of clergy the only thing that mattered to the Buddha was whether or not a person was stream entered becoming a holy person (arya-pudgala). This is where, so to speak, the yellow brick road begins. It does not begin with clergy Buddhism, in other words. Nor should one believe that clergy understand Buddhism who are not inverted (viparyâsa). In fact, most are inverted treating what is impermanent as permanent, what is suffering as nirvana, what is not the self as the self, and what is impure (ashubha) as pure.
By the same token, we should not incautiously trust our own assessments and judgments. We could be terribly wrong and inverted—and often are. This might land us into the state of prithagjana Buddhism in which the prithagjana or ordinary person follows the outer form of Buddhism being content with a dung-like happiness (M. i. 454), seemingly unaware just how profound Buddhism really is.
Comments